L.C. Big Mak Burger Inc. Vs. McDonald's Corporation G.R. No. 233073, February 14, 2018

L.C. Big Mak Burger Inc. Vs. McDonald's Corporation G.R. No. 233073, February 14, 2018

Tijam

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63925

Issues
Is petitioner guilty of indirect contempt?

During the trial of the infringement and unfair competition case, the wrappers and bags for petitioner's burger sandwiches already reflected its corporate name instead of the words "Big Mak."

It bears stressing that the proscription in the injunction order is against petitioner's use of the mark "Big Mak." However, as established, petitioner had already been using its corporate name instead of the proscribed mark. The use of petitioner's corporate name instead of the words "Big Mak" solely was evidently pursuant to the directive of the court in the injunction order. Clearly, as correctly found by the RTC, petitioner had indeed desisted from the use of "Big Mak" to comply with the injunction order.

To be sure, the complaint for change of corporate name before the SEC is a separate and distinct case from that of the infringement and unfair competition case before the trial court.

It was also not unreasonable for the petitioner, through its officers, to think that the stalls and products bearing its corporate name would send the message to the public that the products were the petitioner's and not those of respondent's, the very evil sought to be prevented and/or eradicated by the decision in the infringement/unfair competition case.

We are, therefore, one with the Contempt Court in dismissing the contempt case. There being no issue raised as to the damages awarded and more importantly, finding that the Contempt Court had correctly discussed the rationale for such award, We find it unnecessary to disturb the same.

Decisions
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated February 2, 2017 and Resolution dated July 26, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 36768 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision dated April 7, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 59 is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.