DISTILLERIA WASHINGTON, INC. OR WASHINGTON DISTILLERY, INC. v.

LA TONDEÑA
DISTILLERS, INC. and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 120961. October 2, 1997

FACTS:
La Tondeña Distillers , Inc. filed a case against Distilleria Washington for the seizure of 18,157 empty
bottles bearing the blown-in marks of La Tondeña Inc. and Ginebra San Miguel. Said bottles were being
used by Washington for its own products without the consent of LTDI.LTDI asserted that as the owner of
the bottles they were entitled for the protection extended by RA no. 623 (An Act to regulate the use of
duly stamped or marked bottles, boxes, kegs, barrels and other similar containers). Washington countered
that RA no. 623 should not apply to alcoholic beverages and the ownership of the bottles were lawfully
transferred to the buyer upon the sale of the gin and the containers at a single price.
ISSUE: Whether or not ownership of the empty bottles was transferred to Washington.
HELD:
Yes. La Tondeña not only sold its gin products but also the marked bottles or containers, as well. And
when these products were transferred by way of sale, then ownership over the bottles and all its attributes
(jus utendi, jus abutendi, jus fruendi, jus disponendi) passed to the buyer. It necessarily follows that the
transferee has the right to possession of the bottles unless he uses them in violation of the original
owner’s registered or incorporeal rights.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
It is to be pointed out that a trademark refers to a word, name, symbol, emblem, sign or device or any
combination thereof adopted and used by a merchant to identify, and distinguish from others, his goods of
commerce. It is basically an intellectual creation that is susceptible to ownership and, consistently
therewith, gives rise to its own elements of jus posidendi, jus utendi, jus fruendi, jus disponendi, and jus
abutendi, along with the applicable jus lex, comprising that ownership. The incorporeal right, however, is
distinct from the property in the material object subject to it. Ownership in one does not necessarily vest
ownership in the other. Thus, the transfer or assignment of the intellectual property will not necessarily
constitute a conveyance of the thing it covers, nor would a conveyance of the latter imply the transfer or
assignment of the intellectual right