audmitted that it made use of several Del Monte battles and withou ilcerating the embossed writing a 3. In Shell, the pruduct of respondent was sold to date rot to ultimate consumers. As a general tule, dealers ace nea, Scuueoted wih the manufaetarer rom whorm they tuake fee {coil docived Ike the inospenonced pubic: These een gta be similarities and nitations which deceive al but gence interest of the dealers are not regarded with the sae solesee as ar the Interests ofthe ordinary consumer For siete ess which the wares come tothe Binal buyer that i aFsignibeence 4. REMEDIES AGAINST UNFAIR COMPETITION The Intellectual Property Code provides that the remedies available in Sections 156 and 157 shall upply in eases of unfair come petition DEFENSE AGAINST AN ACTION FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION ‘The owner of the trademark is not entitled to indemnity for damages from the use thereof by another ta which he had consented, prior to the withdrawal of such consent, (Uy v, Santos, 60 Phil. 109), NOTE: 1. _ Prior registration of competing trademark — The prior registration of a trademark does not constitute a defense to an action for the recovery of damage for unfair competition by the owner ofa similar trademark, based upon the fraudulent use of the former. ‘Parke, Davis & Co. v. Kui Foo & Co, 60 Phil 928, Bd Keller & Co, Kinkuwes Merivasu Co, 57 Phil 262; Yobana Co. 0. Chua Seva & Co, 14 Phil. 534) 2% Acquittal in a criminal action for fraudulent registration. — A judgment of acquittal in criminal action for fraudulent registration of a Lrademark cannot be invoked as res judicata in a civil action bused on wn us competition on the sground that the latter are different and hhave not been passed in the judgment rendered in the farmer cease. (Co San v. Dir of Patents, ef al, Le10562, February 23, 1961; Ongura v. Chua 59 Phil. 471, 59) Chapter Vill INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS In Article 26 ofthe Civil Code “the following and similar acts, offense, shall produce a though they may not constitute eriminal offense, shal p {hiae faction for damoges, prevention and other reli (a) Prying into the privacy of anther’ residence; (2) Meddling with or disturbing the privat life or family relations of another: (@) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from is frends (4) Vexing or humiliating anther on acount of his ligious tit lowly station in life place of Bit, physical deft, ov ober personal condition” In plain vernacular anguoge this is known o8-PAKIKIALAM, or as others sa), PAKIKIALAM SA BUHAY NG MAY BUHAY. No less than the Code Commission says that te same now curs “with unpleasant frequene” The law comes in on time eeUEhotecon te thowe who ae tims of such undue interferences. Th the world of business ad contractual elation, said article has aoonrpae nine serra hi bats now 8 PARTAAL SA vr tT or shes arte at HONEA MM cOSYO NG NAY NEGOSYO: sre nerforece is pei covered by Arie 338 a ee ic prove ws ART 214 Any thin perm who induces another son te shal be tbl damages toe ther contracting party.” 29like Article 26, however, the above-quoted article only mentions liability For “damages. It does not state the woes ‘prevention and other reli Is the vietim under Artile 1314 of the New Civil Code limited only «o damages, as and by way of relief to the undue interference ‘committed by’a third person? In the ease of Gilchrist v. Cuddy (29 Phil, 542), a writ of preliminary injunction that was issued by the lower court in favor of Gilehrist was considered as properly issued, ‘The fiets of this case are as follows: Gilchrist leased @ tinematograph film from Cuddy, to be used for exhibition at this theater. The agreed rental is P125.00 per week. Zaldarriaga and Espejo, who are net privies to the lease contract between Gilchrist ind Cuddy, offered to lease the said film from Cuddy for P350.00 a week, The tame being higher than that oft Gilchrist in writing that he had other arrang returned the money paid to him as rental. Consequently, Gilehrist sought a writ of injunction to order Cuddy to deliver to him the said lilm and to prevent Zaldarriaga and Bspejo from exhibiting the film. Zaldarriaga ond Espejo filed an action for damages against jilchrist alleging that the writ was improperly obtained by Gilehrist ‘The same was denied, Is the writ of preliminary injunetion issued against Zaldarriaga ‘and Espejo improperly issued, HELD: ‘The writ of preliminary injunction was properly issued, hhenee, Zaldarriaga and Espejo cannot recover damages from Gilchrist as a result of the issuance of the said writ. ‘The Suprome Court said that the liability of Espejo and Zaldarriaga arises from unlawful acts and not from eontractual obligations, as they were under no such obligation to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist, I the action of Gilehrist had been one for damages, it would be governed by Chapter 2, Title 16, Book 4 of the Civil Code It is not required that Espejo and Zaldarriaga should know the identity of the person who was damage. It is not a condition precedent to the liability of the tortfeasor. CHAPTER IIL a jpagNCe WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS SIN a oN See eee rt Ue Conon ents Se eer a cer ew ereneNT Se Aree an ne PoRteW TELE f wriety is committed if they express their honest views and aero reson a matter which is s0 important and which involves the afc important projects and priorities. As elected representatives sour gowermment