Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ASIA BREWERY v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 164324 2009-08-14	TANDUAY DISTILLERS v. GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL CARPIO, J.
In Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[53] the Court ruled that "pale pilsen" are generic words, "pale" being the actual name of the color and "pilsen" being the type of beer, a light bohemian beer with a strong hops flavor that originated in Pilsen City in Czechoslovakia and became famous in the Middle Ages, and hence incapable of appropriation by any beer manufacturer.[54] Moreover, Section 123.1(h) of the IP Code states that a mark cannot be registered if it "consists exclusively of signs that are generic for the goods or services that they seek to identify."
	GR No. 162311 2008-12-04	LEVI STRAUSS v. TONY LIM REYES, R.T., J.
However, that is a factual issue[40] the resolution of which is improper in a Rule 45 petition.[41] The only legal issue left for the Court to determine is whether the issue of confusion should be determined only at the point of sale.
	GR No. 162311 2008-12-04	LEVI STRAUSS v. TONY LIM REYES, R.T., J.
The rule laid down in Emerald Garment and Del Monte is consistent with Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[71] where the Court held that in resolving cases of infringement and unfair competition, the courts should take into consideration several factors which would affect its conclusion, to wit: the age, training and education of the usual purchaser, the nature and cost of the article, whether the article is bought for immediate consumption and also the conditions under which it is usually purchased.[72]
	GR No. 143993 2004-08-18	MCDONALD’S CORPORATION v. L.C. BIG MAK BURGER CARPIO, J.
Here, petitioners raise questions of fact and law in assailing the Court of Appeals' findings on respondent corporation's non-liability for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Ordinarily, the Court can deny due course to such a petition. In view, however, of the contradictory findings of fact of the RTC and Court of Appeals, the Court opts to accept the petition, this being one of the recognized exceptions to Section 1.[26] We took a similar course of action in Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[27] which also involved a suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition in which the trial court and the Court of Appeals arrived at conflicting findings.