Parts of this answer could not be checked against its sources. Read the law and the decisions in their tabs before relying on it.
Held
No, Spring Corp. is not liable for unfair competition under Section 168 of the Intellectual Property Code.
Explanation
Unfair competition under Section 168 of the Intellectual Property Code protects the goodwill that a person has established in the mind of the public regarding the goods or services they manufacture or deal in. This protection applies whether or not the mark is registered. A person is guilty of unfair competition if they employ deception or any other means contrary to good faith to pass off their goods or services as those of another who has established goodwill, or commit acts calculated to produce such a result. The law specifically includes acts such as giving goods the general appearance of another's goods likely to influence purchasers to believe they are buying the other's products, or using devices or words that deceive the public.
Intent to deceive or defraud the public is presumed when the defendant passes off a product as theirs by using imitative devices or marks that mislead purchasers, makes false statements to discredit another's goods, or when the similarity in appearance of the goods is striking. However, the core element of unfair competition is fraud or the intent to deceive the public. The Supreme Court has clarified that unfair competition requires actual or probable deception and confusion among customers. Mere similarity of marks or names is not enough; there must be evidence that the defendant intended to deceive or that the public is likely to be confused.
The Court in Mighty Corporation v. E. & J. Gallo Winery held that even if a mark is registered, unfair competition requires proof that the defendant attempted to pass off their goods as those of the plaintiff, and that there was bad faith or fraud. Without such proof, there is no liability for unfair competition. Similarly, in Shang Properties Realty Corporation v. St. Francis Development Corporation, the Court emphasized that the test is whether the defendant's acts are calculated to deceive the ordinary buyer, and that the element of fraud must be established.
Application to the facts
Spring Corp. manufactures dairy products under the trademark "Top Tip Dairy Products," which has been in use since 1999 and registered in 2007. Top Tip New Zealand Ltd. produces cigarettes under the registered trademark "TOP TIP," registered since 2005 and marketed in the Philippines since 2000. The two companies operate in entirely different product categories: dairy products versus cigarettes.
Spring Corp. did not attempt to pass off its dairy products as cigarettes or to deceive the public into believing that its products were those of Top Tip New Zealand Ltd. There is no evidence that Spring Corp. gave its products the general appearance of Top Tip New Zealand's cigarettes or used deceptive devices or packaging that would mislead purchasers. What matters for unfair competition is whether there was deception or passing off, regardless of whether the goods are related. In this case, there is no showing of deception, bad faith, or any act calculated to pass off Spring Corp.'s goods as those of Top Tip New Zealand Ltd.
Top Tip New Zealand Ltd.'s claim that Spring Corp. is riding on the popularity of its trademark for cigarettes is not supported by evidence of fraud or deception. The difference in product categories reduces the likelihood of confusion or mistake by the purchasing public. Therefore, Spring Corp. did not commit unfair competition as defined under Section 168 of the Intellectual Property Code.
- unverified (wrong_rule): The answer applies the correct general test for unfair competition but omits the statutory presumption of intent to deceive when the defendant uses imitative marks that mislead purchasers, as provided in Rule 18, Section 7.
- unverified (incomplete): The answer does not consider Section 147.2 and Section 123.1(e)-(f), which extend protection to well-known marks even for dissimilar goods if use would indicate a connection and likely damage the interests of the owner.
"In an action for unfair competition, intent to defraud or deceive the public shall be presumed: a) when the defendant passes off a product as theirs by using imitative devices, signs or marks on the general appearance of the goods, which misleads prospective purchasers into buying their merchandise under the impression that they are buying that of their competitors; b) when the defendant makes any false statement in the course of trade to discredit the goods and business of another; or c) where the similarity in the appearance of the goods as packed and offered for sale is so striking."
"168.1. A person who has identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufactures or deals in, his business or services from those of others, whether or not a registered mark is employed, has a property right in the goodwill of the said goods, business or services so identified, which will be protected in the same manner as other property rights. 168.2. Any person who shall employ deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which he shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services for those of the one having established such goodwill, or who shall co…
"In an action for unfair competition, intent to defraud or deceive the public shall be presumed: a) when the defendant passes off a product as theirs by using imitative devices, signs or marks on the general appearance of the goods, which misleads prospective purchasers into buying their merchandise under the impression that they are buying that of their competitors; b) when the defendant makes any false statement in the course of trade to discredit the goods and business of another; or c) where the similarity in the appearance of the goods as packed and offered for sale is so striking."
[[CASE HOLDING — Mighty Corporation v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, G.R. No. 154342 (2004-07-14)]] The Supreme Court explained that the law on unfair competition is broader than trademark infringement, and that conduct constitutes unfair competition if the effect is to pass off the goods or business of one as that of another. The Court found that the petitioners in that case never attempted to pass off their goods as those of the respondents, and there was no evidence of bad faith or fraud in their use of the mark. Thus, the petitioners were not liable for unfair competition or damages.
[[CASE HOLDING — Shang Properties Realty Corporation v. St. Francis Development Corporation, G.R. No. 190706 (2014-07-21)]] The Supreme Court stated that the true test of unfair competition is whether the acts of the defendant are intended or calculated to deceive the ordinary buyer under the ordinary conditions of the trade. It is essential to prove the existence of fraud or intent to deceive, actual or probable, based on the facts of the case. In that case, the Court found no showing that the petitioners gave their goods the general appearance of those of the respondent or employed any means to induce a false belief among the public. The element of fraud, which is central to unfair competition, was not established.
Laws retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.
- Section 168, Intellectual Property Code with the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases
- Section 7, Intellectual Property Code with the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases
- Section 169, Intellectual Property Code with the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases
- Section 160, Intellectual Property Code with the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases
- Section 147, Intellectual Property Code with the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases
- Section 123, Intellectual Property Code with the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases
- Section 158, Intellectual Property Code with the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases
"DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION Although the laws on trademark infringement and unfair competition have a common conception at their root, that is, a person shall not be permitted to misrepresent his goods or his business as the goods or business of another, the law on unfair competition is broader and more inclusive than the law on trademark infringement. The latter is more limited but it recognizes a more exclusive right derived from the trademark adoption and registration by the person whose goods or business is first associated with it. The law on trademarks is thus a speci…
"The Issue Before the Court With the decisions in both Inter PartesCases having lapsed into finality, the sole issue thus left for the Court's resolution is whether or not petitioners are guilty of unfair competition in using the marks "THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS" and "THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE." The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. Section 168 of Republic Act No. 8293,21 otherwise known as the "Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines"
, provides for the rules and regulations on unfair competition. To begin, Section 168.1 qualifies who is entitled to protection against unfair competition. ... It states that "[a]person who has identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufacturesor deals in, his business or services from those of others, whether or not a registered mark is employed, has a property right in the goodwill of the said goods, business or ..." (Shang Properties Realty Corporation v. St. Francis Development Corporation, G.R. No. 190706 (2014-07-21))
Cases retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.