The preliminary injunction bars TDI from manufacturing, selling or advertising its recently-launched Ginebra Kapitan product while the case is being tried. Hearings are expected to move on to trial proper next week.
The order recognized the use by GSMI of the word "Ginebra" as "a dominant feature in the trademark or trade name which was registered as far back as 1834".
"Because of its long and exclusive use of the said mark, plaintiff (GSMI) has distinguished and identified itself with ‘Ginebra’‚" the court said.
According to Mandaluyong RTC judge Edwin Sorongon, TDI’s use of "Ginebra"as part of the branding feature of Kapitan gin "tends to show defendant’s (TDI) intention to ride on the popularity and the established goodwill of plaintiff’s (GSMI) ‘Ginebra San Miguel.’
The court also noted that while the respective trademarks of the TDI and GSMI products are not identical, there is "a strong indication that confusion is probably or likely to occur since one would inevitably lead to conclude that both products are affiliated to the plaintiff (GSMI) because of the distinctive mark ‘Ginebra’."
"It is the mark which draws the attention of the buyer and leads him to conclude that the goods originated from the same manufacturer," he added.
The court said GSMI is entitled to "protection against infringement and unfair competition due to the principle that "the long and exclusive use of a name or phrase by a business results into the association by the buying public of the name or phrase with the business and its products".
"GSMI had shown that it had been in the business for so long a time with ‘Ginebra’ as the dominant feature of its trademark that it has established goodwill of considerable value," the court said.
"Its articles and gin products have acquired a well-known reputation as just ‘Ginebra’," the court noted.
"In essence, the word ‘Ginebra‚’ has become a by-word and popular among the consuming public that they had closely associated it to the plaintiff (GSMI)," the court added.
The court said TDI "failed to substantiate its claim against the issuance of the injunctive relief".