CA nixes Tanduay bid to derail Ginebra case

The Court of Appeals has junked Tanduay Distillers Inc.’s petition to halt proceedings initiated by San Miguel Corp. to protect the "Ginebra" trademark.

In a 36-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes Jr., the appellate court said Mandaluyong Regional Trial Court Judge Edwin Sorongon’s temporary restraining order (TRO) against Tanduay is backed by strong evidence to justify the judge’s action.

The appellate court added that the judge "observed due process by setting the case for hearing" prior to the issuance of the TRO.

Sorongon ordered Tanduay on Sept. 23 last year to stop from manufacturing, distributing or selling its Ginebra Kapitan products pending hearings on a complaint filed by San Miguel to protect one of its trademarks.

The Court of Appeals said it "found nothing capricious or whimsical" in Sorongon’s restraining order.

It said the evidence and affidavits San Miguel submitted to the court established the fact that "Ginebra Kapitan" and "Ginebra San Miguel" possess "the same physical attributes or essential characteristics in form, composition or structure or quality."

The appellate court added that the evidence presented to the lower court would show that there is really a close resemblance between Ginebra San Miguel and Ginebra Kapitan and enough to say that it may cause confusion, which necessitated the issuance of a (TRO).

It upheld the lower court’s finding that it is obviously clear that the word ‘Ginebra’ is the dominant feature in the trademarks, a strong indication that confusion will likely occur" since "Ginebra" is identified with San Miguel.

"It is the mark which draws the attention of the buyer and leads him to conclude that the goods originated from the same manufacturer," it stressed.

The Court of Appeals also ruled that San Miguel, "has sufficiently established its right to the use and registration of the mark ‘Ginebra’ as a dominant feature of its trademark."

"Ginebra has been identified with its goods, thereby it acquires a right in such name or mark and, if another infringes the trademark, he thereby invokes this property right," it said.

The Court of Appeals also dismissed Tanduay’s allegation that the TRO was issued "despite the absence of any clear and unmistakable right and the absence of irreplaceable injury to San Miguel that need protection."