Case Digest: Elidad Kho and Violeta Kho, petitioners vs. Summerville General Merchandising & Co., Inc (G.R. No. 213400 August 4, 2021)
Facts:
Petitioners Elidad Kho and Violeta Kho were charged with unfair competition by respondent Summerville General Merchandising & Co., Inc. before the City Prosecutor's office in Manila. The issue stems from the petitioner engaging in business with the KEC Cosmetic Laboratory with the purpose of deceiving the public by selling and disposing of facial cream products using tools, implements, and equipment in production, labeling, and distribution which give and depict the general appearance of Chin Chun Su facial creams in which the respondent herein are the legitimate importer and distributor.
Issue:
Whether or not there is unfair competition in the acts done by Kho against Summerville.
Ruling:
Yes, unfair competition sets in.
The essential elements for action for unfair competition are:
1. Confusing similarity in the general appearance of the goods
2. Intent to deceive the public and defraud competitors.
The confusing similarity may or may not result from the similarity in the marks, but may result from other external factors in the packaging or presentation of the goods. The elements of intent to deceive and to defraud may be inferred from the similarity of the appearance of the goods as offered for sale to the public.
Here, petitioner's product which is medicated facial cream sold to the public is contained in the same pink oval-shaped container which had the mark "Chin Chun Su" as that of the respondent. Petitioners' products and that solely distributed by respondent are similar in the following respect: a) both are medicated facial creams; both are contained in pink, oval-shaped containers; 3) both contain the trademark Chin Chun Su.
Therefore the acts complained of against petitioners constituted the offense of Unfair Competition and and probable cause exist to hold them for trial.
Comments
Post a Comment