Christian Martin V.

Casedo

ABE49

2011-47782

April 29, 2015

Fiesta Versus Pista

The Appellee also launched in 2009 its paper ham bag, which looked significantly
similar to the Appellant's paper ham bag; the trade dress and the use of the word "PISTA" in the
packages render the Appellee's mark confusingly similar with FIESTA.

This is one of the grounds in which the Appellant filed a case against the Appellee. In this
motion the appellee is clearly imitating the style of the paper bag of the Appellant. However, the
appellee retaliated, giving the statement:
Its bags are labeled with its house mark COO on all four sides and these bags are given
to consumers only after purchase has been made; from 2006 until 2009, it had been using boxes
or bags which are predominantly red in color while the Appellant had used green-colored bags in
2007 and 2008 ; for 2010 it has adopted a red and green colored bag while the Appellant
maintained its dominantly red bag.

The Appellee merely stated the minor difference between the packaging but failed to address the
similarity, thus, failing to defend the issue on riding with the fame of the Appellant. The first
ruling of the director was that the Appellee was not guilty; but the Director, after the appellant
filed an appeal, sanctioned the Appellee by confiscating and disposing the packaging of the
Appellee.
Moving on, the Appellants most powerful complaint in the case is:

The Appellee is guilty of unfair competition; there is confusing similarity in the general
appearance of its "PUREFOODS FIESTA HAM" and the Appellee's "PISTA COOKED HAM".

The complaint against the Appellee is strong, since, from branding to packaging, the appearances
of the two brands are somewhat identical.
The Appellee responded with:
lt is the owner and prior user of the mark uHOLIDAY' which is the translation of
FIESTA and PISTA; it first used HOLIDAY in the 1970's and first obtained registration for this
mark in 1986; it, thus, has superior rights over this mark or its translation and, consequently, the
registration of PUREFOOOS FIESTA HAM is void; the Appellant is the one guilty of trademark
infringement and unfair competition for infringing and copying HOLIDAY and lt has been
using PISTA in at least the year 2006 which is earlier than the Appellant's filing for the
registration of PUREFOOOS FIESTA HAM.

The Appellants complaint was overpowered by the Appellees retort in grounds of trademark
infringement, since the Appellee proved that their brand was previously registered in the office.
Meanwhile, on grounds of unfair competition, the Appellee failed to defend against the similarity
of the packaging. This, in turn, was perceived as an act of deception to somehow make
consumers believe that they are buying the same product. The appellee was made to pay
P100,000 for nominal damages and P300,000 for lawyer fees.