Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    Mighty Corp. vs. E&J Gallo Winery

    Uploaded by

    Martin Pagtanac
    The case involved a trademark dispute between Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco, Inc. and E&J Gallo Winery and The Andersons Group, Inc. over the use of the trademark 'GALLO'. The court ruled that Mighty was not liable for infringement or unfair competition as the products were sufficiently distinct and there was no attempt to pass off cigarettes as those of the other parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mighty Corp. vs. E&J Gallo Winery

    Uploaded by

    Martin Pagtanac
    60 views2 pages
    The case involved a trademark dispute between Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco, Inc. and E&J Gallo Winery and The Andersons Group, Inc. over the use of the trademark 'GALLO'. The court ruled that Mighty was not liable for infringement or unfair competition as the products were sufficiently distinct and there was no attempt to pass off cigarettes as those of the other parties.

    Original Title

    21. Mighty Corp. vs. E&J Gallo Winery

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a trademark dispute between Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco, Inc. and E&J Gallo Winery and The Andersons Group, Inc. over the use of the trademark 'GALLO'. The court ruled that Mighty was not liable for infringement or unfair competition as the products were sufficiently distinct and there was no attempt to pass off cigarettes as those of the other parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    60 views2 pages

    Mighty Corp. vs. E&J Gallo Winery

    Uploaded by

    Martin Pagtanac
    The case involved a trademark dispute between Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco, Inc. and E&J Gallo Winery and The Andersons Group, Inc. over the use of the trademark 'GALLO'. The court ruled that Mighty was not liable for infringement or unfair competition as the products were sufficiently distinct and there was no attempt to pass off cigarettes as those of the other parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco, Inc. vs.

    E&J
    Case Name
    Gallo Winery and The Andersons Group, Inc.
    Topic Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition
    Case No. |
    154342 – July 14, 2004
    Date
    Ponente J. Corona
    Mighty Corporation and La Campana Farbica De Tabaco, Inc.
    Petitioner

    Respondent E&J Gallo Winery and the Andersons Group, Inc.


    Infringement of trademark
    - is the unauthorized use of a trademark.
    - fraudulent intent is unnecessary.
    - prior registration of the trademark is a prerequisite to the action.
    Definition
    Unfair competition
    - is the passing off of one’s goods as those of another.
    - fraudulent intent is necessary.
    - registration is not necessary.
    Doctrine of Incorporation
    - the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law
    and international jurisprudence as part of the law of the land. Rules of
    international law are given a standing equal, not superior, to national
    legislative enactments.
    Dominancy Test
    Doctrine
    - if the competing trademark contains the main, essential or dominant
    features of another, and confusion or deception is likely to result, infringement
    takes place.
    Holistic Test
    - requires that the entirety of the marks in question be considered in resolving
    confusing similarity.
    In determining the likelihood of confusion, courts must consider:
    (1) resemblance between the trademarks;
    (2) similarity of the goods to which the trademarks are attached;
    (3) likely effect on the purchaser; and
    (4) registrant’s express or implied consent and other fair and equitable
    Enumeratio considerations.
    n Set of guidelines in the implementation of the Treaty of Paris:
    (1) mark must be internationally known;
    (2) subject of the right must be a trademark, not a patent or copyright or
    anything else;
    (3) mark must be for use in the same or similar kind of goods; and
    (4) the person claiming must be the owner of the mark.

    RELEVANT FACTS
     Gallo Winery’s GALLO wine trademark was registered on November 16, 1971.
     Mighty and La Campana are engaged in the cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of
    tobacco products for which they have been using the GALLO cigarette trademark since 1973
     La Campana authorized Mighty to manufacture and sell cigarettes bearing the GALLO
    trademark.
    ISSUE: W/N infringement of unfair competition was committed.
    RULING:
    No. Mighty is not liable for infringement because (1) the actual commercial use of the GALLO
    wine trademark was subsequent to its registration in 1971 and to Tobacco Industries’
    commercia use of the GALLO cigarette trademark in 1973, on this account, respondents
    never enjoyed the exclusive right to use the GALLO wine trademark to the prejudice of
    Tobacco Industries and its successors-in-interest; (2) there is no likelihood of confusion,
    mistake, or deceit as to the identity or source of petitioners and respondents’ goods or
    business; and (3) there is no trademark infringement if the public does not expect the plaintiff
    to make or sell the same class of goods as those made or sole by the defendant from the
    fact that they are not identical, similar, related, or competing goods. Mighty is also not liable
    for unfair competition because (1) Mighty never attempted to pass off their cigarettes as
    those of respondents; and (2) there is no evidence of bad faith of fraud imputable to Mighty
    in using their GALLO cigarette mark.
    DISPOSITIVE PORTION

    WHEREFORE, finding the petition for review meritorious, the same is hereby GRANTED. The
    questioned decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 65175 and the
    November 26, 1998 decision and the June 24, 1999 order of the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
    Branch 57 in Civil Case No. 93-850 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the complaint
    against petitioners DISMISSED. Costs against respondents.
    SO ORDERED.

    100 words

    Mighty vs. E&J Gallo Winery

    Facts: Gallo Winery’s GALLO wine trademark was registered in 1971. Mighty is engaged in
    the business of manufacturing and selling cigarettes bearing the GALLO cigarette
    trademark since 1973.

    Issue:
    WON Mighty is liable for infringement or unfair competition.

    Ruling:
    NO. Mighty is not liable for infringement because the different features like color schemes,
    art works and other markings of both products drown out the similarity between them,
    that is the use of the word “GALLO”. Mighty is not liable for unfair competition because
    Mighty never attempted to pass off their cigarettes as those of E&Js

    You might also like