Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Ipl 2

    Uploaded by

    Paul Espinosa
    This case involves allegations of trademark infringement and unfair competition against Regasco, a liquefied petroleum gas refilling company. Petron and Shell, large LPG producers and owners of the Gasul and Shellane trademarks respectively, allege that Regasco illegally refilled LPG cylinders bearing their trademarks without authorization. The court ruled that Regasco's unauthorized refilling and resale of LPG in branded cylinders was likely to confuse consumers and constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition, as consumers could be misled into believing the LPG came from Petron and Shell when it did not. The court affirmed that unauthorized use of a trademark in commerce can amount to infringement under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

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

    Ipl 2

    Uploaded by

    Paul Espinosa
    25 views26 pages
    This case involves allegations of trademark infringement and unfair competition against Regasco, a liquefied petroleum gas refilling company. Petron and Shell, large LPG producers and owners of the Gasul and Shellane trademarks respectively, allege that Regasco illegally refilled LPG cylinders bearing their trademarks without authorization. The court ruled that Regasco's unauthorized refilling and resale of LPG in branded cylinders was likely to confuse consumers and constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition, as consumers could be misled into believing the LPG came from Petron and Shell when it did not. The court affirmed that unauthorized use of a trademark in commerce can amount to infringement under Philippine law.

    Original Description:

    ra

    Original Title

    IPL 2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves allegations of trademark infringement and unfair competition against Regasco, a liquefied petroleum gas refilling company. Petron and Shell, large LPG producers and owners of the Gasul and Shellane trademarks respectively, allege that Regasco illegally refilled LPG cylinders bearing their trademarks without authorization. The court ruled that Regasco's unauthorized refilling and resale of LPG in branded cylinders was likely to confuse consumers and constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition, as consumers could be misled into believing the LPG came from Petron and Shell when it did not. The court affirmed that unauthorized use of a trademark in commerce can amount to infringement under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    25 views26 pages

    Ipl 2

    Uploaded by

    Paul Espinosa
    This case involves allegations of trademark infringement and unfair competition against Regasco, a liquefied petroleum gas refilling company. Petron and Shell, large LPG producers and owners of the Gasul and Shellane trademarks respectively, allege that Regasco illegally refilled LPG cylinders bearing their trademarks without authorization. The court ruled that Regasco's unauthorized refilling and resale of LPG in branded cylinders was likely to confuse consumers and constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition, as consumers could be misled into believing the LPG came from Petron and Shell when it did not. The court affirmed that unauthorized use of a trademark in commerce can amount to infringement under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 26

    G.R. No.

    194062, June 17, 2013


    REPUBLIC GAS CORPORATION,
    vs.
    PETRON CORPORATION, PILIPINAS SHELL
    PETROLEUM CORPORATION, AND SHELL
    INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED

    PRESENTED BY: EDTER PAUL A. SALCEDO

    FACTS OF THE CASE

    Petitioners Petron Corporation (Petron ) and Pilipinas


    Shell Petroleum Corporation (Shell) are two of the
    largest bulk suppliers and producers of LPG in the
    Philippines.

    Petron is the registered owner in the


    Philippines of the trademarks GASUL and
    GASUL cylinders used for its LGP products. It
    is the sole entity in the Philippines authorized
    to allow refillers and distributors to refill, use,
    sell, and distribute GASUL LPG containers,
    products and its trademarks.

    Pilipinas Shell, on the other hand, is the authorized


    user in the Philippines of the tradename, trademarks,
    symbols or designs of its principal, Shell International
    Petroleum Company Limited, including the marks
    SHELLANE and SHELL device in connection with
    the production, sale and distribution of SHELLANE
    LPGs. It is the only corporation in the Philippines
    authorized to allow refillers and distributors to refill,
    use, sell and distribute SHELLANE LGP containers
    and products.

    Private respondents, on the other hand, are


    the directors and officers of Republic Gas
    Corporation (REGASCO for brevity), an
    entity duly licensed to engage in, conduct and
    carry on, the business of refilling, buying,
    selling, distributing and marketing at
    wholesale and retail of Liquefied Petroleum
    Gas (LPG).

    LPG Dealers Associations, such as the Shellane


    Dealers Association, Inc., Petron Gasul Dealers
    Association, Inc. and Totalgaz Dealers
    Association, received reports that certain entities
    were engaged in the unauthorized refilling, sale
    and distribution of LPG cylinders bearing the
    registered tradenames and trademarks of the
    petitioners.

    On January 28, 2005, the NBI lodged a complaint in


    the Department of Justice against the private
    respondents for alleged violations of Sections 155
    and 168 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8293, otherwise
    known as the Intellectual Property Code of the
    Philippines.

    On January 15, 2006, Assistant City Prosecutor


    Armando C. Velasco recommended the dismissal of
    the complaint. The prosecutor found that there
    was no proof introduced by the petitioners that
    would show that private respondent REGASCO was
    engaged in selling petitioners products or that it
    imitated and reproduced the registered trademarks
    of the petitioners. He further held that he saw no
    deception on the part of REGASCO in the conduct of
    its business of refilling and marketing LPG.

    On appeal, the Secretary of the Department


    of Justice affirmed the prosecutors
    dismissal of the complaint.

    XXXX.
    The empty Shellane and Gasul LPG cylinders were brought
    by the NBI agent specifically for refilling. Refilling the
    same empty cylinders is by no means an offense in itself it
    being the legitimate business of Regasco to engage in the
    refilling and marketing of liquefied petroleum gas. In other
    words, the empty cylinders were merely filled by the
    employees of Regasco because they were brought precisely
    for that purpose. They did not pass off the goods as those of
    complainants as no other act was done other than to refill
    them in the normal course of its business.

    ISSUE OF THE CASE

    Whether probable cause exists to hold


    petitioners liable for the crimes of trademark
    infringement and unfair competition as defined
    and penalized under Sections 155 and 168, in
    relation to Section 170 of Republic Act (R.A.)
    No. 8293.

    RULING

    Section 155. Remedies; Infringement. Any person who shall,


    without the consent of the owner of the registered mark:
    155.1 Use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy
    or colorable imitation of a registered mark of the same
    container or a dominant feature thereof in connection with the
    sale, offering for sale, distribution, advertising of any goods or
    services including other preparatory steps necessary to carry
    out the sale of any goods or services on or in connection with
    which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause
    mistake, or to deceive;

    From the foregoing provision, the Court in a very similar


    case, made it categorically clear that the mere
    unauthorized use of a container bearing a registered
    trademark in connection with the sale, distribution or
    advertising of goods or services which is likely to cause
    confusion, mistake or deception among the buyers or
    consumers can be considered as trademark
    infringement.

    Here, petitioners have actually committed trademark


    infringement when they refilled, without the
    respondents consent, the LPG containers bearing
    the registered marks of the respondents. As noted
    by respondents, petitioners acts will inevitably
    confuse the consuming public, since they have no
    way of knowing that the gas contained in the LPG
    tanks bearing respondents marks is in reality not the
    latters LPG product after the same had been
    illegally refilled.

    The public will then be led to believe that petitioners are


    authorized refillers and distributors of respondents LPG
    products, considering that they are accepting empty
    containers of respondents and refilling them for resale.

    As to the charge of unfair competition, Section 168.3, in relation


    to Section 170, of R.A. No. 8293 describes the acts constituting
    unfair competition as follows:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
    Section 168. Unfair Competition, Rights, Regulations and
    Remedies. x x x.
    168.3 In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of
    protection against unfair competition, the following shall be
    deemed guilty of unfair competition:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

    (a) Any person, who is selling his goods and gives them
    the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or
    dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping
    of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices
    or words thereon, or in any other feature of their
    appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers
    to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer
    or dealer, other than the actual manufacturer or dealer, or
    who otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance as
    shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate
    trade, or any subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent
    of any vendor engaged in selling such goods with a like
    purpose;

    From jurisprudence, unfair competition has been defined


    as the passing off (or palming off) or attempting to
    pass off upon the public of the goods or business of one
    person as the goods or business of another with the end
    and probable effect of deceiving the public

    Passing off (or palming off) takes place where the


    defendant, by imitative devices on the general
    appearance of the goods, misleads prospective
    purchasers into buying his merchandise under the
    impression that they are buying that of his
    competitors. Thus, the defendant gives his goods
    the general appearance of the goods of his
    competitor with the intention of deceiving the public
    that the goods are those of his competitor.

    In the present case, respondents pertinently observed


    that by refilling and selling LPG cylinders bearing their
    registered marks, petitioners are selling goods by giving
    them the general appearance of goods of another
    manufacturer.

    The CA correctly pointed out that there is a showing


    that the consumers may be misled into believing that
    the LPGs contained in the cylinders bearing the
    marks GASUL and SHELLANE are those goods
    or products of the petitioners when, in fact, they are
    not. Obviously, the mere use of those LPG cylinders
    bearing the trademarks GASUL and SHELLANE
    will give the LPGs sold by REGASCO the general
    appearance of the products of the petitioners.

    The SC reiterated the ruling in Ty vs. De Jemil (G.R. No.


    182147, 15 December 2010) that the mere unauthorized
    use of a container bearing a registered trademark in
    connection with the sale, distribution or advertising of
    goods or services which is likely to cause confusion,
    mistake or deception among the buyers or consumers
    can be considered as trademark infringement.

    Thank You

    PRESENTED BY: EDTER PAUL A.


    SALCEDO

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy