In relation to that is the case of Coca-cola vs.

Quintin Gomez, November 18, 2013, the last case, coke

applied for search warrant for hoarding of coke bottles in pepsi warehouse and applied for unfair
competition, coke alleged that destruction and concealment of the bottles. So the cause of action of
coke was unfair competition for violation of section 168.3.C of the intellectual property code in relation
to section 173. Is the hoarding of coke containers punishable as unfair competition under section
168.3.C? who shall commit any other act contrary to good faith of a nature calculated to discredit the
goods, business or services of another. Sabi ng supreme court, ha? What are you talking about? Does
not fall, your cause of action does not fall on this, pepsi does not discredit you or your good faith, kung
nagkataon yung products ninyo sa kanilang warehouse, this is not an act calculated to discredit the
goods. What can pepsi be sold for? The bottles owned by coca-cola, it should have filed a case of theft
with prayer of recovery of ownership of the bottles. There is no unfair competition if you find coca-cola
bottles in the pepsi warehouse. As held by the supreme court in this case:

“true test” of unfair competition: whether the acts of defendant are such as are
calculated to deceive the ordinary buyer making his purchases under the
ordinary conditions which prevail in the particular trade to which the
controversy relates.[13]    One of the essential requisites in an action to restrain
unfair competition is proof of fraud; the intent to deceive must be shown before
the right to recover can exist.[14]    The advent of the IP Code has not significantly
changed these rulings as they are fully in accord with what Section 168 of the
Code in its entirety provides.  Deception, passing off  and  fraud upon the
public  are still the key elements that must be present for unfair competition to
exist.
 
The act alleged to violate the petitioner’s rights under Section 168.3 (c) is
hoarding which we gather to be the collection of the petitioner’s empty bottles
so that they can be withdrawn from circulation and thus impede the circulation
of the petitioner’s bottled products.    This, according to the petitioner, is an act
contrary to good faith – a conclusion that, if true, is indeed an unfair act on the
part of the respondents.    The critical question, however, is  not the intrinsic
unfairness  of the act of hoarding; what is critical for purposes of Section 168.3
(c) is to determine if the hoarding, as charged, “is of a nature calculated to
discredit the goods, business or services” of the petitioner.
 
We hold that it is not.    Hoarding as defined by the petitioner is not even an act
within the contemplation of the IP Code. 

Sec. 169. False Designations of Origin; False Description or Representation

Sec.169.1.
1. Any person who, on or in connection with:
a. any goods or services, or
 b. any container for goods,
2. uses in commerce any:
a. word,
b. term,
c. name,
d. symbol, or
e. device, or
f. any combination thereof, or
g. false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or
h. false or misleading representation of fact,
3. which is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection,
or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of
his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person; or
4. in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or
geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,
5. shall be liable to a civil action for damages and injunction provided in Sec. 156 and 157 by any
person who believes that he or she is or likely to be damaged by such act.

Ok now let’s go to penalties.

Sec. 170. Penalties

Independent of the civil and administrative sanctions imposed by law, a criminal penalty of
imprisonment from 2 years to 5 years and a fine ranging from P50,000 to P200,000, shall be imposed on
any person who is found guilty of committing any of the acts mentioned in Sec. 155, Sec. 168 and Sec.
169.1. (Art. 188 and 189, RPC)

Just take note of the criminal aspect.