#13 L.C. BIG MAK BURGER, INC., petitioner , vs.

McDONALD'S
CORPORATION, respondent .

 This is a contempt case filed by Mcdonalds against LC Bigmark for the award
of the case of Trademark Infringement and unfair competition
 Macdonals sue Big Mak for using business name Big Mak which likely to
confuse, mislead or deceive the public
 The court ruled in favor of McDonalds and directed Big Mak to pay damages
and to stop the use of the mark “BIG MAK”
 Mcdonalds filed a petition for contempt against President of LC Big Mak Inc
for disobeying and ignoring the judgement
 The respondent McDonalds contends that the continuous use of LC Big Mak as
their corporate name is an infringement of respondents corporate name
 In an answer, respondent denied that they refused to settle and honor the
judgement. They presented evidences that as early as 2009, they remove the
mark BIG MAK in their products and uses the mark SUPER MAK and as to the
award of damages, checks was issued and given to the Sheriff
 The RTC dismissed the petition but the CA reversed the decision and find LC
Big Mak guilty of indirect contempt and to pay damages

ISSUE: WON LC Big Mak use of corporate name is tantamount to indirect contempt

SC Ruling:

 No.
 It bears stressing that the proscription in the injunction order is
against petitioners use of the word BIG MAK. However, as
established, petitioner had already been using its corporate
name instead of the words “BIG MAK” solely was evidently
pursuant to the directive of the court in the injunction order.
As correctly found by RTC, petitioner had indeed desisted from
the use of Big Mak to comply with the injunction order
 The use of the petitioner’s name was already decided by the
SEC when the respondent sought for the cancellation of the
petitioners corporate name to some other name which is
confusingly or deceptively similar to respondents Big Mac
mark. In the said case, SEC dismissed respondents case, ruling
that petitioners use of the name Big Mak Burger has priority in
right, and that the petitioners corporate name is not identical
or confusingly similar to respondents Big Mac hence, there is
no basis to cancel petitioners corporate name.
 Petitioner's justification of its questioned action is not at all
implausible. This Court finds no reason to reject petitioner's
explanation or doubt its good faith as certainly, the use of its
corporate name was warranted by the SEC Decision.
 It was also not unreasonable for the petitioner, through its
officers, to think that the stalls and products bearing its
corporate name would send the message to the public that the
products were the petitioner's and not those of respondent's,
the very evil sought to be prevented and/or eradicated by the
decision in the infringement/unfair competition case. ETHIDa