Você está na página 1de 6

G.R. No.

115758 March 19, 2002 After due hearing on the application for preliminary injunction, the trial court granted
the same in an Order dated February 10, 1992, the dispositive portion of which reads:
ELIDAD C. KHO, doing business under the name and style of KEC COSMETICS
LABORATORY, petitioner, ACCORDINGLY, the application of plaintiff Elidad C. Kho, doing business under the
style of KEC Cosmetic Laboratory, for preliminary injunction, is hereby granted.
vs. Consequentially, plaintiff is required to file with the Court a bond executed to
defendants in the amount of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to the effect
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SUMMERVILLE GENERAL MERCHANDISING and that plaintiff will pay to defendants all damages which defendants may sustain by
COMPANY, and ANG TIAM CHAY, respondents. reason of the injunction if the Court should finally decide that plaintiff is not entitled
thereto.

SO ORDERED.3
DECISION
The respondents moved for reconsideration but their motion for reconsideration was
DE LEON, JR., J.: denied by the trial court in an Order dated March 19, 1992.4

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 dated May 24, 1993 of On April 24, 1992, the respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of
the Court of Appeals setting aside and declaring as null and void the Orders2 dated Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 27803, praying for the nullification of the said
February 10, 1992 and March 19, 1992 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, of writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court. After the respondents filed their
Quezon City granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. reply and almost a month after petitioner submitted her comment, or on August 14
1992, the latter moved to dismiss the petition for violation of Supreme Court Circular
The facts of the case are as follows: No. 28-91, a circular prohibiting forum shopping. According to the petitioner, the
respondents did not state the docket number of the civil case in the caption of their
On December 20, 1991, petitioner Elidad C. Kho filed a complaint for injunction and petition and, more significantly, they did not include therein a certificate of non-forum
damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, docketed as shopping. The respondents opposed the petition and submitted to the appellate court
Civil Case No. Q-91-10926, against the respondents Summerville General a certificate of non-forum shopping for their petition.
Merchandising and Company (Summerville, for brevity) and Ang Tiam Chay.
On May 24, 1993, the appellate court rendered a Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 27803
The petitioner’s complaint alleges that petitioner, doing business under the name and ruling in favor of the respondents, the dispositive portion of which reads:
style of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory, is the registered owner of the copyrights Chin
Chun Su and Oval Facial Cream Container/Case, as shown by Certificates of WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby given due course and the orders of respondent
Copyright Registration No. 0-1358 and No. 0-3678; that she also has patent rights on court dated February 10, 1992 and March 19, 1992 granting the writ of preliminary
Chin Chun Su & Device and Chin Chun Su for medicated cream after purchasing the injunction and denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration are hereby set aside
same from Quintin Cheng, the registered owner thereof in the Supplemental Register and declared null and void. Respondent court is directed to forthwith proceed with the
of the Philippine Patent Office on February 7, 1980 under Registration Certificate No. trial of Civil Case No. Q-91-10926 and resolve the issue raised by the parties on the
4529; that respondent Summerville advertised and sold petitioner’s cream products merits.
under the brand name Chin Chun Su, in similar containers that petitioner uses,
thereby misleading the public, and resulting in the decline in the petitioner’s business SO ORDERED.5
sales and income; and, that the respondents should be enjoined from allegedly
infringing on the copyrights and patents of the petitioner. In granting the petition, the appellate court ruled that:

The respondents, on the other hand, alleged as their defense that Summerville is the The registration of the trademark or brandname “Chin Chun Su” by KEC with the
exclusive and authorized importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun Su supplemental register of the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer
products manufactured by Shun Yi Factory of Taiwan; that the said Taiwanese cannot be equated with registration in the principal register, which is duly protected by
manufacturing company authorized Summerville to register its trade name Chin Chun the Trademark Law.1âwphi1.nêt
Su Medicated Cream with the Philippine Patent Office and other appropriate
governmental agencies; that KEC Cosmetics Laboratory of the petitioner obtained the xxx xxx xxx
copyrights through misrepresentation and falsification; and, that the authority of
Quintin Cheng, assignee of the patent registration certificate, to distribute and market As ratiocinated in La Chemise Lacoste, S.S. vs. Fernandez, 129 SCRA 373, 393:
Chin Chun Su products in the Philippines had already been terminated by the said
Taiwanese Manufacturing Company. “Registration in the Supplemental Register, therefore, serves as notice that the
registrant is using or has appropriated the trademark. By the very fact that the

1
trademark cannot as yet be on guard and there are certain defects, some obstacles RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
which the use must still overcome before he can claim legal ownership of the mark or OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN REFUSING TO
ask the courts to vindicate his claims of an exclusive right to the use of the same. It PROMPTLY RESOLVE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
would be deceptive for a party with nothing more than a registration in the
Supplemental Register to posture before courts of justice as if the registration is in the III
Principal Register.
IN DELAYING THE RESOLUTION OF PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
The reliance of the private respondent on the last sentence of the Patent office action RECONSIDERATION, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DENIED
on application Serial No. 30954 that ‘registrants is presumed to be the owner of the PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO SEEK TIMELY APPELLATE RELIEF AND VIOLATED
mark until after the registration is declared cancelled’ is, therefore, misplaced and PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
grounded on shaky foundation. The supposed presumption not only runs counter to
the precept embodied in Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Practice before the IV
Philippine Patent Office in Trademark Cases but considering all the facts ventilated
before us in the four interrelated petitions involving the petitioner and the respondent, RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
it is devoid of factual basis. As even in cases where presumption and precept may OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN FAILING TO CITE
factually be reconciled, we have held that the presumption is rebuttable, not THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IN CONTEMPT.9
conclusive, (People v. Lim Hoa, G.R. No. L-10612, May 30, 1958, Unreported). One
may be declared an unfair competitor even if his competing trademark is registered The petitioner faults the appellate court for not dismissing the petition on the ground
(Parke, Davis & Co. v. Kiu Foo & Co., et al., 60 Phil 928; La Yebana Co. v. Chua of violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91. Also, the petitioner contends that
Seco & Co., 14 Phil 534).”6 the appellate court violated Section 6, Rule 9 of the Revised Internal Rules of the
Court of Appeals when it failed to rule on her motion for reconsideration within ninety
(90) days from the time it is submitted for resolution. The appellate court ruled only
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. This she followed with several after the lapse of three hundred fifty-four (354) days, or on June 3, 1994. In delaying
motions to declare respondents in contempt of court for publishing advertisements the resolution thereof, the appellate court denied the petitioner’s right to seek the
notifying the public of the promulgation of the assailed decision of the appellate court timely appellate relief. Finally, petitioner describes as arbitrary the denial of her
and stating that genuine Chin Chun Su products could be obtained only from motions for contempt of court against the respondents.
Summerville General Merchandising and Co.
We rule in favor of the respondents.
In the meantime, the trial court went on to hear petitioner’s complaint for final
injunction and damages. On October 22, 1993, the trial court rendered a Decision7 Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, one of the
barring the petitioner from using the trademark Chin Chun Su and upholding the right grounds for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is a proof that the applicant
of the respondents to use the same, but recognizing the copyright of the petitioner is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in
over the oval shaped container of her beauty cream. The trial court did not award restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, either for
damages and costs to any of the parties but to their respective counsels were a limited period or perpetually. Thus, a preliminary injunction order may be granted
awarded Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) each as attorney’s fees. The only when the application for the issuance of the same shows facts entitling the
petitioner duly appealed the said decision to the Court of Appeals. applicant to the relief demanded.10 This is the reason why we have ruled that it must
be shown that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and
On June 3, 1994, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution8 denying the substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable, and, that there is
petitioner’s motions for reconsideration and for contempt of court in CA-G.R. SP No. an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.11
27803.
In the case at bar, the petitioner applied for the issuance of a preliminary injunctive
Hence, this petition anchored on the following assignment of errors: order on the ground that she is entitled to the use of the trademark on Chin Chun Su
and its container based on her copyright and patent over the same. We first find it
I appropriate to rule on whether the copyright and patent over the name and container
of a beauty cream product would entitle the registrant to the use and ownership over
RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE the same to the exclusion of others.
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN FAILING TO RULE
ON PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS. Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot
be interchanged with one another. A trademark is any visible sign capable of
II distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and
shall include a stamped or marked container of goods.12 In relation thereto, a trade
name means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise.13

2
Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which are The petitioner argues that the appellate court erred in not dismissing the petition for
original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the certiorari for non-compliance with the rule on forum shopping. We disagree. First, the
moment of their creation.14 Patentable inventions, on the other hand, refer to any petitioner improperly raised the technical objection of non-compliance with Supreme
technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an Court Circular No. 28-91 by filing a motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari filed in
inventive step and is industrially applicable.15 the appellate court. This is prohibited by Section 6, Rule 66 of the Revised Rules of
Civil Procedure which provides that “(I)n petitions for certiorari before the Supreme
Petitioner has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use of the subject trade Court and the Court of Appeals, the provisions of Section 2, Rule 56, shall be
name and its container. The name and container of a beauty cream product are observed. Before giving due course thereto, the court may require the respondents to
proper subjects of a trademark inasmuch as the same falls squarely within its file their comment to, and not a motion to dismiss, the petition xxx (italics supplied)”.
definition. In order to be entitled to exclusively use the same in the sale of the beauty Secondly, the issue was raised one month after petitioner had filed her
cream product, the user must sufficiently prove that she registered or used it before answer/comment and after private respondent had replied thereto. Under Section 1,
anybody else did. The petitioner’s copyright and patent registration of the name and Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss shall be filed
container would not guarantee her the right to the exclusive use of the same for the within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a
reason that they are not appropriate subjects of the said intellectual rights. claim. She therefore could no longer submit a motion to dismiss nor raise defenses
Consequently, a preliminary injunction order cannot be issued for the reason that the and objections not included in the answer/comment she had earlier tendered. Thirdly,
petitioner has not proven that she has a clear right over the said name and container substantial justice and equity require this Court not to revive a dissolved writ of
to the exclusion of others, not having proven that she has registered a trademark injunction in favor of a party without any legal right thereto merely on a technical
thereto or used the same before anyone did. infirmity. The granting of an injunctive writ based on a technical ground rather than
compliance with the requisites for the issuance of the same is contrary to the primary
We cannot likewise overlook the decision of the trial court in the case for final objective of legal procedure which is to serve as a means to dispense justice to the
injunction and damages. The dispositive portion of said decision held that the deserving party.
petitioner does not have trademark rights on the name and container of the beauty
cream product. The said decision on the merits of the trial court rendered the The petitioner likewise contends that the appellate court unduly delayed the resolution
issuance of the writ of a preliminary injunction moot and academic notwithstanding of her motion for reconsideration. But we find that petitioner contributed to this delay
the fact that the same has been appealed in the Court of Appeals. This is supported when she filed successive contentious motions in the same proceeding, the last of
by our ruling in La Vista Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals16, to wit: which was on October 27, 1993, necessitating counter-manifestations from private
respondents with the last one being filed on November 9, 1993. Nonetheless, it is
Considering that preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy which may be granted well-settled that non-observance of the period for deciding cases or their incidents
at any time after the commencement of the action and before judgment when it is does not render such judgments ineffective or void.17 With respect to the purported
established that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded and only when his damages she suffered due to the alleged delay in resolving her motion for
complaint shows facts entitling such reliefs xxx and it appearing that the trial court reconsideration, we find that the said issue has likewise been rendered moot and
had already granted the issuance of a final injunction in favor of petitioner in its academic by our ruling that she has no right over the trademark and, consequently, to
decision rendered after trial on the merits xxx the Court resolved to Dismiss the the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
instant petition having been rendered moot and academic. An injunction issued by the
trial court after it has already made a clear pronouncement as to the plaintiff’s right Finally, we rule that the Court of Appeals correctly denied the petitioner’s several
thereto, that is, after the same issue has been decided on the merits, the trial court motions for contempt of court. There is nothing contemptuous about the
having appreciated the evidence presented, is proper, notwithstanding the fact that advertisements complained of which, as regards the proceedings in CA-G.R. SP No.
the decision rendered is not yet final xxx. Being an ancillary remedy, the proceedings 27803 merely announced in plain and straightforward language the promulgation of
for preliminary injunction cannot stand separately or proceed independently of the the assailed Decision of the appellate court. Moreover, pursuant to Section 4 of Rule
decision rendered on the merit of the main case for injunction. The merit of the main 39 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the said decision nullifying the injunctive
case having been already determined in favor of the applicant, the preliminary writ was immediately executory.
determination of its non-existence ceases to have any force and effect. (italics
supplied) WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals dated May 24, 1993 and June 3, 1994, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED.
La Vista categorically pronounced that the issuance of a final injunction renders any With costs against the petitioner.
question on the preliminary injunctive order moot and academic despite the fact that
the decision granting a final injunction is pending appeal. Conversely, a decision SO ORDERED.
denying the applicant-plaintiff’s right to a final injunction, although appealed, renders
moot and academic any objection to the prior dissolution of a writ of preliminary
injunction.

3
CASE DIGEST Meanwhile, there was a decline in the petitioner’s business income due to the
advertisement and sale made by Summerville on petitioner’s products under the
Elidad Kho vs Court of Appeals same brand name and in similar containers. According to Summerville, they are the
exclusive and authorized importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun Su
Elidad Kho is the owner of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory and she was also the holder of products manufactured by Shun Yi Factory of Taiwan and that said company
copyrights over Chin Chun Su and its Oval Facial Cream Container/Case. She also authorized them to register its trade name “Chin Chun Su Mediated Cream” with the
bought the patent rights over the Chin Chun Su & Device and Chin Chun Su for PPO.
medicated cream from one Quintin Cheng, who was the assignee of Shun Yi Factory
– a Taiwanese factory actually manufacturing Chin Chun Su products. The application for preliminary injunction filed by petitioner was granted. Hence,
respondents moved for reconsideration, which was denied. The respondents then
Kho filed a petition for injunction against Summerville General Merchandising and moved for nullification of said preliminary injunction with the CA. The latter granted its
Company to enjoin the latter from advertising and selling Chin Chun Su products, in petition.
similar containers as that of Kho, for this is misleading the public and causing Kho to
lose income; the petition is also to enjoin Summerville from infringing upon Kho’s
copyrights. ISSUE: WON the copyright and patent over the name and container of the beauty
cream product entitle the registrant to its EXCLUSIVE use and ownership .
Summerville in their defense alleged that they are the exclusive and authorized
importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun Su products; that Shun Yi even
authorized Summerville to register its trade name Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream HELD: NO. The petitioner has no right for the EXCLUSIVE use of the trade name
with the Philippine Patent Office; that Quintin Cheng, from whom Kho acquired her and its container. In order to be entitled to its exclusive use, the user must sufficiently
patent rights, had been terminated (her services) by Shun Yi. prove that she registered or used it before anybody else did. This, petitioner failed to
do.
ISSUE: Whether or not Kho has the exclusive right to use the trade name and its
container. “Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot
be interchanged with one another. A trademark is any visible sign capable of
HELD: No. Kho has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use of the subject distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and
trade name and its container. The name and container of a beauty cream product are shall include a stamped or marked container of goods. In relation thereto, a trade
proper subjects of a trademark (not copyright like what she registered for) inasmuch name means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise.
as the same falls squarely within its definition. In order to be entitled to exclusively Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which are
use the same in the sale of the beauty cream product, the user must sufficiently prove original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the
that she registered or used it before anybody else did. Kho’s copyright and patent moment of their creation. Patentable inventions, on the other hand, refer to any
registration of the name and container would not guarantee her the right to the technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an
exclusive use of the same for the reason that they are not appropriate subjects of the inventive step and is industrially applicable”.
said intellectual rights. Consequently, a preliminary injunction order cannot be issued
for the reason that the petitioner has not proven that she has a clear right over the
said name and container to the exclusion of others, not having proven that she has KHO V. CA (G.R. NO. 115758)
registered a trademark thereto or used the same before anyone did.
Facts:

G.R. No. 115758 March 19, 2002 Petitioner, doing business under the name and style KEC Cosmetics Laboratory,
ELIDAD C. KHO, doing business under the name and style of KEC COSMETICS alleges that it is the registered owner of copyright and patent registration of the Chin
LABORATORY, petitioner, 
vs.
 HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SUMMERVILLE Chun Su container and medicated cream. Hence, petitioner filed a complaint to enjoin
GENERAL MERCHANDISING and COMPANY, and ANG TIAM CHAY, respondents. respondent Summerville Company from advertising and selling cream products under
the same brand name Chin Chun Su as it will mislead the public and damage
FACTS: petitioner’s business. The trial court granted the injunction. On appeal, the writ was
dissolved. The trial court ruled to bar petitioner from using the mark Chin Chun Su.
The petitioner alleged that she is the registered owner of the copyrights Chin Chun Su
and Oval Facial Cream Container/Case as evidenced by certificates of copyright Issue:
registrations and patent rights on Chun Chun Su & Device and Chin Chun Su
(medicated cream) after she purchased it from Quintin Cheng (previous registered Whether or not petitioner is entitled to the exclusive use of the trademark Chin Chun
owner in the Philippine Patent Office [PPO]). Su based on her copyright and patent registration over the product.

4
Ruling: NO. ISSUE:
Whether or not Kho has the sole right using the package of Chin Chun Su products
Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot
be interchanged with one another. A trademark is any visible sign capable of RULING:
distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and Petitioner has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use of the subject trade
shall include a stamped or marked container of goods. In relation thereto, a trade name and its container. The name and container of a beauty cream product are
name means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise. proper subjects of a trademark in as much as the same falls squarely within its
Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which are definition. In order to be entitled to exclusively use the same in the sale of the beauty
original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the cream product, the user must sufficiently prove that she registered or used it before
moment of their creation. Patentable inventions, on the other hand, refer to any anybody else did. The petitioner’s copyright and patent registration of the name and
technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an container would not guarantee her the right to exclusive use of the same for the
inventive step and is industrially applicable. Petitioner has no right to support her reason that they are not appropriate subjects of the said intellectual rights.
claim for the exclusive use of the subject trade name and its container. The name and Consequently, a preliminary injunction order cannot be issued for the reason that the
container of a beauty cream product are proper subjects of a trademark inasmuch as petitioner has not proven that she has a clear right over the said name and container
the same falls squarely within its definition. to the exclusion of others, not having proven that she has registered a trademark
thereto or used the same before anyone did.
In order to be entitled to exclusively use the same in the sale of the beauty cream
product, the user must sufficiently prove that she registered or used it before anybody NOTE:
else did. The petitioner’s copyright and patent registration of the name and container Trademark, copyright, and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot
would not guarantee her right to the exclusive use of the same for the reason that be interchanged with one another. A trademark is any visible sign capable of
they are not appropriate subjects of the said intellectual rights. Consequently, a distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and
preliminary injunction order cannot be issued for the reason that the petitioner has not shall include a stamped or marked container goods. In relation thereto, a trade name
proven that she has a clear right over the said name and container to the exclusion of means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise.
others, not having proven that she has registered a trademark thereto or used the Meanwhile, the scope of copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which are
same before anyone did. original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the
moment of their creation. Patentable inventions, on the other hand, refer to any
technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an
Elidad C. Kho vs. Court of Appeals, Summerville General Merchandising Company inventive step and is industrial applicable.
and Ang Tiam Chay (G.R. No. 115758, March 19, 2002, 379 SCRA 410)
FACTS:
Petitioner‘s allegations are that they are doing business under the name and style of Elidad Kho v Court of Appeals and Summerville General Merchandising G.R. No.
KEC Cosmetics Laboratory, registered owner of Chin Chun Su and oval facial cream 115758. March 19, 2002
container/case, and alleges that she also has patent rights on Chin Chun Su and
Device and Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream after purchasing the same from Quintin Facts:
Cheng, the registered owner thereof in the supplemental register of the Philippine
Patent Office and that Summerville advertised and sold petitioner’s cream products Petitioner is doing business under the name of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory and is the
under the brand name Chin Chun Su, in similar containers that petitioner uses, registered owner of copyright Chin Chun Su and Oval Facial Cream Container with a
thereby misleading the public, and resulting in the decline in the petitioner’s business patent right on Chin Chun Su & Device and Chin Chun Su for medicated cream after
sales and income; and, that the respondents should be enjoined from allegedly purchasing the same from Quintin Cheng, a registered owner in Supplemental
infringing on the copyrights and patents of the petitioner. Register of the Philippine Patent Office. It alleges that respondent Summerville
advertised and sold the petitioner’s cream products under the brand name Chin Chun
The respondents, on the other hand, alleged as their defense that (1) Summerville is Su using similar container that the petitioner used thereby misleading the public and
the exclusive and authorized importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun Su depriving the petitioner of business sales and income. It enjoins the respondent from
products manufactured by Shun Yi factory of Taiwan, (2) that the said Taiwanese allegedly infringing its copyright and patent right over the same product. In defense
manufacturing company authorized Summerville to register its trade name Chin Chun respondent claims to be the exclusive and authorized importer, re-packer and
Cu Medicated Cream with the Philippine Patent office and Other appropriate distributor of the Chin Chun Su product manufactured by Shun Yi Factory in Taiwan
governmental agencies; (3) that KEC Cosmetics Laboratory of the petitioner obtained authorizing Summerville to register its trade name Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream
the copyrights through misrepresentation and falsification; and, (4) that the authority with the Philippine Patent Office. It also points out that the assignee of the patent
of Quintin Cheng, assignee of the patent registration certificate, to distribute and registration certification in the Philippines, Quintin Cheng, has already been
market Chin Chun Su products in the Philippines had already terminated by the said terminated by the said Taiwanese Manufacturing Company. Trial court granted the
Taiwanese manufacturing company. injunction in favor of the petitioner. On appeal, respondent prays for the nullification of
the writ of preliminary injunction which was set aside by the Court of Appeals on the

5
account that the registration of the trademark Chin Chun Su by KEC with the name means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise.
supplemental register of the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which are
cannot be equated with registration in the principal register duly protected by the original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the
Trademark law. moment of their creation. Patentable inventions, on the other hand, refer to any
technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an
Issue: inventive step and is industrially applicable.

Whether or not petitioner’s copyright and patent over the name Chin Chun Su and its
container entitle her to the use and ownership over the same to the exclusion of Petitioner has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use of the subject trade
others? name and its container. The name and container of a beauty cream product are
proper subjects of a trademark inasmuch as the same falls squarely within its
Ruling: definition. In order to be entitled to exclusively use the same in the sale of the beauty
cream product, the user must sufficiently prove that she registered or used it before
The Supreme Court points out that trademark, copyright and patents are different anybody else did. The petitioner’s copyright and patent registration of the name and
intellectual property rights. A trademark is any visible sign capable of distinguishing container would not guarantee her the right to the exclusive use of the same for the
the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a reason that they are not appropriate subjects of the said intellectual rights.
stamped or marked container of goods. The scope of a copyright is confined to Consequently, a preliminary injunction order cannot be issued for the reason that the
literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and petitioner has not proven that she has a clear right over the said name and container
artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation. Patentable inventions, on to the exclusion of others, not having proven that she has registered a trademark
the other hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field of human thereto or used the same before anyone did.
activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable. To be
entitled for the exclusive use of the name and container of the cream product, which
are proper subjects of a trademark, the user has to sufficiently prove that she
registered or used it before anybody did. The petitioner’s patent and copyright
registration does not guarantee the right to exclusive use of the product because they
are not the proper subject of the said intellectual right (trademark). Hence the
preliminary injunction cannot be issued since the petitioner has not registered the
trademark of the product Chin Chin Su in their name.

Kho vs CA
[G.R. No. 115758. March 19, 2002]

FACTS:

In the case at bar, the petitioner applied for the issuance of a preliminary injunctive
order on the ground that she is entitled to the use of the trademark on Chin Chun Su
and its container based on her copyright and patent over the same. The respondents,
on the other hand, alleged as their defense that Summerville is the exclusive and
authorized importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun Su products
manufactured by Shun Yi Factory of Taiwan; that the said Taiwanese manufacturing
company authorized Summerville to register its trade name Chin Chun Su Medicated
Cream with the Philippine Patent Office and other appropriate governmental agencies
Issue: WON Petitioner has the right to support her claim for the exclusive use of the
subject trade name and its container.

HELD:

Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot
be interchanged with one another. A trademark is any visible sign capable of
distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and
shall include a stamped or marked container of goods. In relation thereto, a trade