G.R. No. L-78325; January 25, 1990
DEL MONTE CORPORATION and PHILIPPINE PACKING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SUNSHINE SAUCE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Del Monte Corporation, a U.S. company, and its domestic licensee, Philippine Packing Corporation (Philpack), held registered trademarks for “DEL MONTE” and its logo, and a certificate for its distinctive catsup bottle configuration. Respondent Sunshine Sauce Manufacturing Industries was engaged in manufacturing and selling sauces, including “Sunshine Fruit Catsup,” using a registered logo and bottles purchased from junk shops, some of which were Del Monte bottles. The petitioners sued Sunshine for trademark infringement and unfair competition, alleging that Sunshine’s use of a confusingly similar logo and the Del Monte bottles constituted passing off its goods as those of Del Monte.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, finding substantial differences between the logos, that Sunshine had ceased using the bottles, and that the petitioners failed to prove bad faith—an essential element. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, arguing that the lower courts erred in their application of the law on infringement and unfair competition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court erred in dismissing the complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. On trademark infringement, the Court clarified that the test is whether the defendant’s trademark is likely to cause confusion or mistake among purchasers. Comparing the labels, the Court found that Sunshine’s label, featuring a sun design with the words “Sunshine Fruit Catsup,” was a colorable imitation of Del Monte’s label, which depicted a tomato and the words “Del Monte Catsup.” The overall impression, including the color scheme and layout, was deceptively similar, likely to mislead ordinary purchasers exercising ordinary caution.
Regarding unfair competition, the Court held that the essence of the offense is the passing off of one’s goods as those of another, resulting in damage. Proof of fraudulent intent is not required; it is sufficient that the acts are likely to deceive the public. Sunshine’s act of refilling genuine Del Monte bottles with its own product constituted unfair competition. A buyer could be misled into thinking the contents were Del Monte’s, especially since the bottle’s distinctive shape was part of its registered trademark. The purchase of empty bottles from junk shops did not confer the right to use them for a different product, as this practice deceives the public and damages the goodwill of the trademark owner. The Court permanently enjoined Sunshine from using the similar label and the Del Monte bottles, canceling its certificate of registration, and awarded nominal damages to the petitioners.