FINLAY, FLEMING & CO., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ONG TAN CHUAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT

This is an action to recover damages caused to the plaintiff by the unfair
competition of the defendant. The plaintiff, through its agent Behn, Meyer &
Co., Limited, was the sole vendor of a certain kind of wax candles. They were
put up in packages of two sizes, wrapped in blue paper, to which was affixed a
price of paper, in the form of a label, upon which were printed and impressed
the trade name and style of that class of candles, consisting of certain
peculiar and special pictures, signs, forms, designs, and colors which, taken
together, distingushed a package containing that class of candles from all
others then on the market.

The allegations of the complaint are that the defendant knowing that the
plaintiff, by industry and expense and by long lapse of time, had established a
large trade in these candles, obtained the manufacture in Japan of a trade name,
mark or label approximating very closely both in scheme, form, pictures, design,
color, and style that of the plaintiff in this case. While different in many of
the minuter details, the trade label on defendant’s candles was so similar in
general appearance to that of the plaintiff that one would very readily be taken
for the other. Taking this in connection with the fact that the packages were
put up in substantially the same size and form and wrapped in exactly the same
kind and color of paper, and we have a situation presented which demonstrates
that the ordinary purchaser of that article would very probably be deceived into
purchasing defendant’s candles instead of plaintiff’s although he had
theretofore been a regular customer of the latter and at the moment desired to
purchase its candles.

The trial court found that the similarity between the trade label of the two
classes of candles was such as to produce unfair competition and upon an
accounting by the defendant found the damages to be P661.56. This appeal is from
that judgment.

Section 7 of Act No. 666 provides that “Any person who in selling his goods
shall give them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or
dealer, either in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or
the devices or words thereon, or in any other feature of their appearance, which
would be likely to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are
those of a manufacturer or dealer other than the actual manufacturer or dealer,
and who clothes the goods with such appearance for the purpose of deceiving the
public and defrauding another of his legitimate trade, or any subsequent vendor
of such goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling such goods with a
like purpose, shall be guilty of unfair competition, and shall be liable to an
action for damages, in which the measure shall be the same as that provided for
a violation of trademark rights, together with discretionary power in the court
to impose double damages, if the circumstances call for the same. * * *.”

We believe that the evidence fully sustains the trial court in the conclusion
that this section was violated by the defendant in this case. A glance at the
packages as they come before us shows a striking similarity, both in form, color
and general appearance, in the trade label attached to the packages. Moreover,
we find the boxes in which the candles are shipped to be substantially the same
in both cases. Those of the defendant approximate very closely those of the
plaintiff in size, appearance and method of fastening, as well as the words
printed thereon. Taken all in all, the attempt to imitate is so clear that we do
not go into a discussion of the particular details which constitute the
similarity.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs

against the appellant.

Arellano, C. J., Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.