DEL MONTE CORPORATION and PHILIPPINE PACKING CORPORATION vs.
COURT OF
APPEALS and SUNSHINE SAUCE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
FACTS: Petitioner Del Monte Corporation (Del Monte), through its local distributor and
manufacturer, PhilPack filed an infringement of copyright complaint WITH CLAIM FOR
DAMAGES against respondent Sunshine Sauce Manufacturing Industries (SSMI), also a maker
of catsup and other kitchen sauces. In its complaint, Del Monte alleged that SSMI are using
bottles and logos identical to the petitioner, to which is deceiving and misleading to the public.
In its answer, Sunshine alleged that it had ceased to use the Del Monte bottle and that its logo
was substantially different from the Del Monte logo and would not confuse the buying public to
the detriment of the petitioners.
The Regional Trial Court of Makati dismissed the complaint. It held that there were substantial
differences between the logos or trademarks of the parties nor on the continued use of Del
Monte bottles. The decision was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
1. WON SSMI committed infringement against Del Monte in the use of its logos and bottles.
2. WON Petitioner Del Monte is entitled to damages
HELD:
1. Yes. In determining whether two trademarks are confusingly similar, the two marks in
their entirety as they appear in the respective labels must be considered in relation to the
goods to which they are attached; the discerning eye of the observer must focus not only
on the precognizant words but also on the other features appearing on both labels. It has
been correctly held that side-by-side comparison is not the final test of similarity. In
determining whether a trademark has been infringed, we must consider the mark as a
whole and not as dissected.
The Court is agreed that are indeed distinctions, but similarities holds a greater weight in this
case. The Sunshine label is a colorable imitation of the Del Monte trademark. What is
undeniable is the fact that when a manufacturer prepares to package his product, he has before
him a boundless choice of words, phrases, colors and symbols sufficient to distinguish his
product from the others. Sunshine chose, without a reasonable explanation, to use the same
colors and letters as those used by Del Monte though the field of its selection was so broad, the
inevitable conclusion is that it was done deliberately to deceive.
With regard to the bottle use, Sunshine despite the many choices available to it and
notwithstanding that the caution "Del Monte Corporation, Not to be Refilled" was embossed on
the bottle, still opted to use the petitioners' bottle to market a product which Philpack also
produces. This clearly shows the private respondent's bad faith and its intention to capitalize on
the latter's reputation and goodwill and pass off its own product as that of Del Monte.
2. NO, because the Petitioner has not presented evidence to prove the amount thereof.
Fortunately for the petitioners, they may still find some small comfort in Art. 2222 of the Civil
Code, which provides:
Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source
enumerated in Art. 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded. Accordingly,
the Court can only award to the petitioners, as it hereby does award, nominal damages in the
amount of Pl,000.00.
