RULINGS(OF(THE(CASES(IN(INTELLECTUAL(PROPERTY(

LAWS(
Prepared'by'Glenn'Rey'Anino(
University'of'Cebu(
(
(
TAÑADA'v.'ANGARA,'G.R.'No.'118295.''May'2,'1997E'272'SCRA(
! Issue:(WON(the(General(Provisions(and(Basic(Principles(of(the(Agreement(on(TradeGRelated(
Aspects( of( Intellectual( Property( Rights( (TRIPS)( intrudes( on( the( power( of( theSupreme(
Court(to(promulgate(rules(concerning(pleading,(practice(and(procedures.(
! Suffice( it( to( say( that( the( reciprocity( clause( more( than( justifies( such( intrusion,( if( any(
actually(exists.(In(the(area(of(trade(related(aspects(of(intellectual(property(rights((TRIPS,(
for(brevity):(Each(Member(shall(accord(to(the(nationals(of(other(Members(treatment(no(
less( favorable( than( that( it( accords( to( its( own( nationals( with( regard( to( the( protection( of(
intellectual(property:(
! a(WTO(Member(is(required(to(provide(a(rule(of(disputable((not(the(words("in(the(absence(
of( proof( to( the( contrary")( presumption( that( a( product( shown( to( be( identical( to( one(
produced(with(the(use(of(a(patented(process(shall(be(deemed(to(have(been(obtained(by(
the( (illegal)( use( of( the( said( patented( process,( (1)( where( such( product( obtained( by( the(
patented(product(is(new,(or((2)(where(there(is("substantial(likelihood(“that(the(identical(
product(was(made(with(the(use(of(the(said(patented(process(but(the(owner(of(the(patent(
could(not(determine(the(exact(process(used(in(obtaining(such(identical(product.(Hence,(
the("burden(of(proof"(contemplated(by(Article(34(should(actually(be(understood(as(the(
duty(of(the(alleged(patent(infringer(to(overthrow(such(presumption.(Such(burden,(properly(
understood,(actually(refers(to(the("burden(of(evidence"((burden(of(going(forward)(placed(
on(the(producer(of(the(identical((or(fake)product(to(show(that(his(product(was(produced(
without(the(use(of(the(patented(process.(The(foregoing(notwithstanding,(the(patent(owner(
still( has( the( "burden( of( proof"( since,( regardless( of( the( presumption( provided( under(
paragraph(1(of(Article(34,(such(owner(still(has(to(introduce(evidence(of(the(existence(of(
the(alleged(identical(product,(the(fact(that(it(is("identical"(to(the(genuine(one(produced(by(
the( patented( process( and( the( fact( of( "newness"( of( the( genuine( product( or( the( fact( of(
"substantial( likelihood"( that( the( identical( product( was( made( by( the( patented( process.(
Moreover,(it(should(be(noted(that(the(requirement(of(Article(34(to(provide(a(disputable(
presumption(applies(only(if((1)(the(product(obtained(by(the(patented(process(in(NEW(or(
(2)(there(is(a(substantial(likelihood(that(the(identical(product(was(made(by(the(process(
and( the( process( owner( has( not( been( able( through( reasonable( effort( to( determine( the(
process(used.(Where(either(of(these(two(provisos(does(not(obtain,(members(shall(be(free(
to(determine(the(appropriate(method(of(implementing(the(provisions(of(TRIPS(within(their(
own(internal(systems(and(processes.(
! While(the(Constitution(indeed(mandates(a(bias(in(favor(of(Filipino(goods,(services,(labor(and(
enterprises,(at(the(same(time,(it(recognizes(the(need(for(business(exchange(with(the(rest(
of( the( world( on( the( bases( of( equality( and( reciprocity( and( limits( protection( of( Filipino(
enterprises(only(against(foreign(competition(and(trade(practices(that(are(unfair.(In(other(
words,(the(Constitution(did(not(intend(to(pursue(an(isolationist(policy.((It(did(not(shut(out(
foreign( investments,( goods( and( services( in( the( development( of( the( Philippine(
economy.((While( the( Constitution( does( not( encourage( the( unlimited( entry( of( foreign(
 goods,(services(and(investments(into(the(country,(it(does(not(prohibit(them(either.((In(fact,(
it(allows(an(exchange(on(the(basis(of(equality(and(reciprocity,(frowning(only(on(foreign(
competition(that(is(unfair.(
! There(is(hardly(therefore(any(basis(for(the(statement(that(under(the(WTO,(local(industries(
and(enterprises(will(all(be(wiped(out(and(that(Filipinos(will(be(deprived(of(control(of(the(
economy.(( Quite( the( contrary,(the( weaker( situations( of( developing( nations( like( the(
Philippines(have(been(taken(into(account\(thus,(there(would(be(no(basis(to(say(that(in(
joining(the(WTO,(the(respondents(have(gravely(abused(their(discretion.((True,(they(have(
made(a(bold(decision(to(steer(the(ship(of(state(into(the(yet(uncharted(sea(of(economic(
liberalization.((But(such(decision(cannot(be(set(aside(on(the(ground(of((grave(abuse(of(
discretion,(simply(because(we(disagree(with(it(or(simply(because(we(believe(only(in(other(
economic(policies.(
! Aside(from(envisioning(a(trade(policy(based(on(“equality(and(reciprocity,”(the(fundamental(
law(encourages(industries(that(are(“competitive(in(both(domestic(and(foreign(markets,”(
thereby(demonstrating(a(clear(policy(against(a(sheltered(domestic(trade(environment,(but(
one(in(favor(of(the(gradual(development(of(robust(industries(that(can(compete(with(the(
best( in( the( foreign( markets.(( Indeed,( Filipino( managers( and( Filipino( enterprises( have(
shown( capability( and( tenacity( to( compete( internationally.(( And( given( a( free( trade(
environment,(Filipino(entrepreneurs(and(managers(in(Hongkong(have(demonstrated(the(
Filipino(capacity(to(grow(and(to(prosper(against(the(best(offered(under(a(policy(of(laissez(
faire.(
! Petitioners(aver(that(paragraph(1,(Article(34(of(the(General(Provisions(and(Basic(Principles(
of( the( Agreement( on( TradeGRelated( Aspects( of( Intellectual( Property( Rights( (TRIPS)(
intrudes(on(the(power(of(the(Supreme(Court(to(promulgate(rules(concerning(pleading,(
practice(and(procedures.xxx(By(and(large,(the(arguments(adduced(in(connection(with(our(
disposition(of(the(third(issue(GG(derogation(of(legislative(power(G(will(apply(to(this(fourth(
issue(also.((Suffice(it(to(say(that(the(reciprocity(clause(more(than(justifies(such(intrusion,(
if( any( actually( exists.(Besides,( Article( 34( does( not( contain( an( unreasonable( burden,(
consistent( as( it( is( with( due( process( and( the( concept( of( adversarial( dispute( settlement(
inherent( in( our( judicial( system.(So( too,( since( the( Philippine( is( a( signatory( to( most(
international( conventions( on( patents,( trademarks( and( copyrights,( the( adjustment( in(
legislation(and(rules(of(procedure(will(not(be(substantial(
! Hence,(the(“burden(of(proof”(contemplated(by(Article(34(should(actually(be(understood(as(
the(duty(of(the(alleged(patent(infringer(to(overthrow(such(presumption.(((Such(burden,(
properly(understood,(actually(refers(to(the(“burden(of(evidence”(((burden(of(going(forward)(
placed( on( the( producer( of( the( identical( (or( fake)( product( to( show( that( his( product( was(
produced( without( the( use( of( the( patented( process.(The( foregoing( notwithstanding,( the(
patent(owner(still(has(the(“burden(of(proof”(since,(regardless(of(the(presumption(provided(
under( paragraph( 1( of( Article( 34,( such( owner( still( has( to( introduce( evidence( of( the(
existence(of(the(alleged(identical(product,(the(fact(that(it(is(“identical”(to(the(genuine(one(
produced(by(the(patented(process(and(the(fact(of(“newness”(of(the(genuine(product(or(
the(fact(of(“substantial(likelihood”(that(the(identical(product(was(made(by(the(patented(
process.(
(
MIRPURI'vs.'COURT'OF'APPEALSE'318'SCRA(
! Definition(of(Trademark:(This(definition(has(been(simplified(in(R.A.(No.(8293,(the(Intellectual(
Property(Code(of(the(Philippines,(which(defines(a("trademark"(as("any(visible(sign(capable(
 of(distinguishing(goods."(In(Philippine(jurisprudence,(the(function(of(a(trademark(is(to(point(
out(distinctly(the(origin(or(ownership(of(the(goods(to(which(it(is(affixed\(to(secure(to(him,(
who(has(been(instrumental(in(bringing(into(the(market(a(superior(article(of(merchandise,(
the(fruit(of(his(industry(and(skill\(to(assure(the(public(that(they(are(procuring(the(genuine(
article\( to( prevent( fraud( and( imposition\( and( to( protect( the( manufacturer( against(
substitution(and(sale(of(an(inferior(and(different(article(as(his(product(
! THREE(DISTINCT(FUNCTIONS(OF(TRADEMARKS:(Modern(authorities(on(trademark(law(
view( trademarks( as( performing( three( distinct( functions:(((1)( they( indicate(origin( or(
ownership(of(the(articles(to(which(they(are(attached\((2)(theyguarantee(that(those(articles(
come( up( to( a( certain( standard( of( quality\( and( (3)( they(advertise(the( articles( they(
symbolize.(
! Today,( the( trademark( is( not( merely( a( symbol( of( origin( and( goodwill\( it( is( often( the( most(
effective( agent( for( the( actual( creation( and( protection( of( goodwill.(( It( imprints( upon( the(
public(mind(an(anonymous(and(impersonal(guaranty(of(satisfaction,(creating(a(desire(for(
further( satisfaction.(( In( other( words,(the( mark( actually( sells( the( goods.( The( mark( has(
become( the( "silent( salesman,"( the( conduit( through( which( direct( contact( between( the(
trademark(owner(and(the(consumer(is(assured.((It(has(invaded(popular(culture(in(ways(
never(anticipated(that(it(has(become(a(more(convincing(selling(point(than(even(the(quality(
of(the(article(to(which(it(refers(
! The( Convention( of( Paris( for( the( Protection( of( Industrial( Property,( otherwise( known( as( the(
Paris( Convention,( is( a( multilateral( treaty( that( seeks( to( protect( industrial( property(
consisting(of(patents,(utility(models,(industrial(designs,(trademarks,(service(marks,(trade(
names(and(indications(of((source(or(appellations(of(origin,(and(at(the(same(time(aims(to(
repress(unfair(competition(
! In( short,(foreign( nationals( are( to( be( given( the( same( treatment( in( each( of( the( member(
countries( as( that( country( makes( available( to( its( own( citizens.( Nationals( of( the( various(
member(nations(are(thus(assured(of(a(certain(minimum(of(international(protection(of(their(
industrial(property.(
! Article(6bis(governs(protection(of(wellGknown(trademarks.((Under(the(first(paragraph,(each(
country(of(the(Union(bound(itself(to(undertake(to(refuse(or(cancel(the(registration,(and(
prohibit(the(use(of(a(trademark(which(is(a(reproduction,(imitation(or(translation,(or(any(
essential(part(of(which(trademark(constitutes(a(reproduction,(liable(to(create(confusion,(
of(a(mark(considered(by(the(competent(authority(of(the(country(where(protection(is(sought,(
to( be( wellGknown( in( the( country( as( being( already( the( mark( of( a( person( entitled( to( the(
benefits(of(the(Convention,(and(used(for(identical(or(similar(goods.(
! Article( 6bis( of( the( Paris( Convention( is( a( selfGexecuting( provision( and( does( not( require(
legislative(enactment(to(give(effect(in(the(member(country.(
! The(essential(requirement(under(Article(6bis(is(that(the(trademark(to(be(protected(must(be(
"wellGknown"(in(the(country(where(protection(is(sought.((The(power(to(determine(whether(
a(trademark(is(wellGknown(lies(in(the("competent(authority(of(the(country(of(registration(or(
use."(This(competent(authority(would(be(either(the(registering(authority(if(it(has(the(power(
to(decide(this,(or(the(courts(of(the(country(in(question(if(the(issue(comes(before(a(court.(
! Intellectual' and' industrial' property' rights' cases' are' not' simple' property'
cases.(( Trademarks( deal( with( the( psychological( function( of( symbols( and( the( effect( of(
these(symbols(on(the(public(at(large.(Trademarks(play(a(significant(role(in(communication,(
commerce( and( trade,( and( serve( valuable( and( interrelated( business( functions,( both(
 nationally( and( internationally.(( For( this( reason,( all( agreements( concerning( industrial(
property,( like( those( on( trademarks( and( tradenames,( are( intimately( connected( with(
economic( development.( Industrial( property( encourages( investments( in( new( ideas( and(
inventions( and( stimulates( creative( efforts( for( the( satisfaction( of( human( needs.(( They(
speed(up(transfer(of(technology(and(industrialization,(and(thereby(bring(about(social(and(
economic( progress.( These( advantages( have( been( acknowledged( by( the( Philippine(
government(itself.(
! Res' judicata' therefore' does' not' apply' to' the' instant' case' and' respondent' Court' of'
Appeals'did'not'err'in'so'ruling.'IPC'No.'2049'raised'the'issue'of'ownership'of'the'
trademark,'the'first'registration'and'use'of'the'trademark'in'the'United'States'and'
other'countries,'and'the'international'recognition'and'reputation'of'the'trademark'
established'by'extensive'use'and'advertisement'of'private'respondent's'products'
for'over'forty'years'here'and'abroad.'(These(are(different(from(the(issues(of(confusing(
similarity(and(damage(in(IPC(No.(686.((The(issue(of(prior(use(may(have(been(raised(in(
IPC(No.(686(but(this(claim(was(limited(to(prior(use(in(the(Philippines(only.((Prior(use(in(
IPC(No.(2049(stems(from(private(respondent's(claim(as(originator(of(the(word(and(symbol(
"Barbizon,"( as( the( first( and( registered( user( of( the( mark( attached( to( its( products( which(
have( been( sold( and( advertised( worldwide( for( a( considerable( number( of( years( prior( to(
petitioner's(first(application(for(registration(of(her(trademark(in(the(Philippines.(((Indeed,(
these( are( substantial( allegations( that( raised( new( issues( and( necessarily( gave( private(
respondent( a( new( cause( of( action.( (( Res( judicata( does( not( apply( to( rights,( claims( or(
demands,(although(growing(out(of(the(same(subject(matter,(which(constitute(separate(or(
distinct(causes(of(action(and(were(not(put(in(issue(in(the(former(action.(
! It'is'also'noted'that'the'oppositions'in'the'first'and'second'cases'are'based'on'different'
laws.(The(opposition(in(IPC(No.(686(was(based(on(specific(provisions(of(the(Trademark(
Law,( i.e.,( Section( 4( (d)(on( confusing( similarity( of( trademarks(and( Section( 8( on(
the(requisite(damage(to(file(an(opposition(to(a(petition(for(registration.((The(opposition(in(
IPC(No.(2049(invoked(the(Paris(Convention,(particularly(Article(6bis(thereof,(E.O.(No.(913(
and( the( two( Memoranda(of( the( Minister( of( Trade( and( Industry.( This( opposition( also(
invokedArticle(189(of(the(Revised(Penal(Code(which(is(a(statute(totally(different(from(the(
Trademark(Law.(
(
(
SASOT'v.'PEOPLE(
! A( foreign( corporation( not( engaged( and( licensed( to( do( business( in( the( Philippines( may(
maintain(an(action(for(unfair(competition.(Unfair(completion(punishable(under(Art.(189(of(
the(RPC(is(a(public(crime.(
(
(
PEARL'&'DEAN'v.'SHOEMART,'409'SCRA'231(
! NO( COPYRIGHT( INFRINGEMENT:( Copyright,( in( the( strict( sense( of( the( term,( is( purely( a(
statutory( right.((Being( a( mere( statutory( grant,( the( rights( are( limited( to( what( the( statute(
confers.(( It( may( be( obtained( and( enjoyed( only( with( respect( to( the( subjects( and( by( the(
persons,(and(on(terms(and(conditions(specified(in(the(statute.((Accordingly,(it(can(cover(
only(the(works(falling(within(the(statutory(enumeration(or(description.(P(&(D(secured(its(
copyright( under( the( classification( class( “O”( work.(( This( being( so,( petitioner’s( copyright(
protection(extended(only(to(the(technical(drawings(and(not(to(the(light(box(itself(because(
 the(latter(was(not(at(all(in(the(category(of(“prints,(pictorial(illustrations,(advertising(copies,(
labels,(tags(and(box(wraps.”((Stated(otherwise,(even(as(we(find(that(P(&(D(indeed(owned(
a(valid(copyright,(the(same(could(have(referred(only(to(the(technical(drawings(within(the(
category(of(“pictorial(illustrations.”((It(could(not(have(possibly(stretched(out(to(include(the(
underlying(light(box.(
! NO(PATENT(INFRINGEMENT:(There(can(be(no(infringement(of(a(patent(until(a(patent(has(
been(issued(since(whatever(right(one(has(to(the(invention(covered(by(the(patent(arises(
alone(from(the(grant(of(patent.(An(inventor(has(no(common(law(right(to(a(monopoly(of(his(
invention.(He(has(the(right(to(make(use(of(and(vend(his(invention,(but(if(he(voluntarily(
discloses( it,( such( as( by( offering( it( for( sale,( the( world( is( free( to( copy( and( use( it( with(
impunity.(( A( patent,( however,( gives( the( inventor( the( right( to( exclude( all( others.(( As( a(
patentee,( he( has( the( exclusive( right( of( making,( selling( or( using( the( invention.( On( the(
assumption( that( petitioner’s( advertising( units( were( patentable( inventions,( petitioner(
revealed(them(fully(to(the(public(by(submitting(the(engineering(drawings(thereof(to(the(
National(Library.(
! To( be( able( to( effectively( and( legally( preclude( others( from( copying( and( profiting( from( the(
invention,(a(patent(is(a(primordial(requirement.((No#patent,#no#protection.((The(ultimate(
goal(of(a(patent(system(is(to(bring(new(designs(and(technologies(into(the(public(domain(
through(disclosure.(Ideas,(once(disclosed(to(the(public(without(the(protection(of(a(valid(
patent,(are(subject(to(appropriation(without(significant(restraint(
! The( patent( law( has( a( threeGfold( purpose:(“first,( patent( law( seeks( to( foster( and( reward(
invention\( second,( it( promotes( disclosures( of( inventions( to( stimulate( further( innovation(
and( to( permit( the( public( to( practice( the( invention( once( the( patent( expires\( third,( the(
stringent(requirements(for(patent(protection(seek(to(ensure(that(ideas(in(the(public(domain(
remain(there(for(the(free(use(of(the(public(
! One(who(has(adopted(and(used(a(trademark(on(his(goods(does(not(prevent(the(adoption(
and( use( of( the( same( trademark( by( others( for( products( which( are( of( a( different(
description.”#The# certificate# of# registration# issued# by# the# Director# of# Patents# can#
confer#the#exclusive#right#to#use#its#own#symbol#only#to#those#goods#specified#in#
the#certificate,(subject(to(any(conditions(and(limitations(specified(in(the(certificate.(
! By( the( nature( of( things,( there( can( be( no( unfair( competition( under( the( law( on( copyrights(
although(it(is(applicable(to(disputes(over(the(use(of(trademarks.(Even(a(name(or(phrase(
incapable(of(appropriation(as(a(trademark(or(tradename(may,(by(long(and(exclusive(use(
by(a(business((such(that(the(name(or(phrase(becomes(associated(with(the(business(or(
product( in( the( mind( of( the( purchasing( public),( be( entitled( to( protection( against( unfair(
competition.[27](In(this(case,(there(was(no(evidence(that(P(&(D’s(use(of(“Poster(Ads”(was(
distinctive(or(wellGknown.(As(noted(by(the(Court(of(Appeals,(petitioner’s(expert(witnesses(
himself( had( testified( that( “( ‘Poster( Ads’( was( too( generic( a( name.( So( it( was( difficult( to(
identify(it(with(any(company,(honestly(speaking.”[28](This(crucial(admission(by(its(own(
expert(witness(that(“Poster(Ads”(could(not(be(associated(with(P(&(D(showed(that,(in(the(
mind(of(the(public,(the(goods(and(services(carrying(the(trademark(“Poster(Ads”(could(not(
be(distinguished(from(the(goods(and(services(of(other(entities.(
(
(
(
KHO'v.'COURT'OF'APPEALS,'GR'NO.'11578,'MARCH'19,'2002E'379'SCRA(
! 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( name( means( the( name( or( designation( identifying( or(
distinguishing(an(enterprise.(
! Meanwhile,(the#scope#of#a#copyright#is#confined#to#literary#and#artistic#works#which#are#
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( inventive( step( and( is( industrially(
applicable(
! Issue:(WON(the(copyright(and(patent(over(the(name(and(container(of(a(beauty(cream(product(
would(entitle(the(registrant(to(the(use(and(ownership(over(the(same(to(the(exclusion(of(
others.(
! No.(Petitioner(has(no(right(to(support(her(claim(for(the(exclusive(use(of(the(subject(trade(
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#
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# anybody# else# did.(The( petitioner’s( copyright( and( patent( registration( of( the(
name(and(container(would(not(guarantee(her(the(right(to(the(exclusive(use(of(the(same(
for( the( reason( that( they( are( not( appropriate( subjects( of( the( 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(registered(a(trademark(thereto(
or(used(the(same(before(anyone(did.(
! The(dispositive(portion(of(said(decision(held(that(the(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(issuance(of(the(writ(of(a(preliminary(injunction(moot(
and(academic(notwithstanding(the(fact(that(the(same(has(been(appealed(in(the(Court(of(
Appeals.(
! Finally,(we(rule(that(the(Court(of(Appeals(correctly(denied(the(petitioner(’s(several(motions(
for( contempt( of( court.( There( is( nothing( contemptuous( about( the( advertisements(
complained( of( which,( as( regards( the( proceedings( in( CAGG.R.( SP( No.( 27803( merely(
announced( in( plain( and( straightforward( language( the( promulgation( of( the( assailed(
Decision(of(the(appellate(court.(Moreover,(pursuant(to(Section(4(of(Rule(39(of(the(Revised(
Rules(of(Civil(Procedure,(the(said(decision(nullifying(the(injunctive(writ(was(immediately(
executory.(
(
(
(
PHIL'PHARMAWEALTH,'INC.'v.'PFIZER'(PHIL.),'INC.,'G.R.'No.'167715,'
NOVEMBER'17,'2010,'635'SCRA'140(
! Issue:(WON(an(injunctive(relief(be(issued(based(on(an(action(of(patent(infringement(when(
the(patent(allegedly(infringed(has(already(lapsed.(
 ! No.(The(exclusive(right(of(a(patentee(to(make,(use(and(sell(a(patented(product,(article(
or( process( exists( only( during( the( term( of( the( patent.(It( is( clear( from( the( aboveGquoted(
provision(of(law(that(the(exclusive(right(of(a(patentee(to(make,(use(and(sell(a(patented(
product,(article(or(process(exists(only(during(the(term(of(the(patent.(In(the(instant(case,(
Philippine( Letters( Patent( No.( 21116,( which( was( the( basis( of( respondents( in( filing( their(
complaint( with( the( BLAGIPO,( was( issued( on( July( 16,( 1987.( This( fact( was( admitted( by(
respondents(themselves(in(their(complaint.(They(also(admitted(that(the(validity(of(the(said(
patent(is(until(July(16,(2004,(which(is(in(conformity(with(Section(21(of(RA(165,(providing(
that(the(term(of(a(patent(shall(be(seventeen((17)(years(from(the(date(of(issuance(thereof.(
Section(4,(Rule(129(of(the(Rules(of(Court(provides(that(an(admission,(verbal(or(written,(
made(by(a(party(in(the(course(of(the(proceedings(in(the(same(case,(does(not(require(proof(
and(that(the(admission(may(be(contradicted(only(by(showing(that(it(was(made(through(
palpable(mistake(or(that(no(such(admission(was(made.(In(the(present(case,(there(is(no(
dispute( as( to( respondents'( admission( that( the( term( of( their( patent( expired( on( July( 16,(
2004.(Neither(is(there(evidence(to(show(that(their(admission(was(made(through(palpable(
mistake.(Hence,(contrary(to(the(pronouncement(of(the(CA,(there(is(no(longer(any(need(to(
present(evidence(on(the(issue(of(expiration(of(respondents'(patent.(
! What'tribunal'has'jurisdiction'to'review'the'decisions'of'the'Director'of'Legal'Affairs'
of'the'Intellectual'Property'Office?(
! According(to(IP(Code,(the(Director(General(of(the(IPO(exercises(exclusive(jurisdiction(
over(decisions(of(the(IPOGBLA.(The(question(in(the(CA(concerns(an(interlocutory(order,(
and(not(a(decision.(Since(the(IP(Code(and(the(Rules(and(Regulations(are(bereft(of(any(
remedy(regarding(interlocutory(orders(of(the(IPOGBLA,(the(only(remedy(available(to(Pfizer(
is(to(apply(the(Rules(and(Regulations(suppletorily.(Under(the(Rules,(a(petition(for(certiorari(
to(the(CA(is(the(proper(remedy.(This(is(consistent(with(the(Rules(of(Court.(Thus,(the(CA(
had(jurisdiction.(
(
(
(
(
INcNcOUT'BURGER,'INC.'v.'SEHWANI,'INCORPORATED'and/or'BBENITA’S'
FRITES,'INC.,'GR'No.'179127,'575'SCRA'535(
! Issue:( WON( the( IPO( (administrative( bodies)( have( jurisdiction( to( cases( involving( unfair(
competition.(
! Yes.(Sec.(160(and(170,(which(are(found(under(Part(III(of(the(IP(Code,(recognize(the(
concurrent( jurisdiction( of( civil( courts( and( the( IPO( over( unfair( competition( cases.(
Therefore,( the( IPO( Director( of( Legal( Affairs( have( jurisdiction( to( decide( the( petitioner's(
administrative( case( against( respondents( and( the( IPO( Director( General( have( exclusive(
jurisdiction(over(the(appeal(of(the(judgment(of(the(IPO(Director(of(Legal(Affairs.(
! JURISDICTION:,Petitioner’s(complaint,(which(seeks(the(cancellation(of(the(disputed(mark(in(
the(name(of(respondent(Sehwani,(Incorporated,(and(damages(for(violation(of(petitioner’s(
intellectual( property( rights,( falls( within( the( jurisdiction( of( the( IPO( Director( of( Legal(
Affairs.(The( Intellectual( Property( Code( also( expressly( recognizes( the( appellate(
jurisdiction(of(the(IPO(Director(General(over(the(decisions(of(the(IPO(Director(of(Legal(
Affairs.(
! The(Court(of(Appeals(incorrectly(concluded(that(all(actions(involving(trademarks,(including(
charges( of( unfair( competition,( are( under( the( exclusive( jurisdiction( of( civil( courts.(Such(
 interpretation(is(not(supported(by(the(provisions(of(the(Intellectual(Property(Code.((While(
Section( 163( thereof( vests( in( civil( courts( jurisdiction( over( cases( of( unfair( competition,(
nothing(in(the(said(section(states(that(the(regular(courts(have(sole(jurisdiction(over(unfair(
competition(cases,(to(the(exclusion(of(administrative(bodies.((On(the(contrary,(Sections(
160( and( 170,( which( are( also( found( under( Part( III( of( the( Intellectual( Property( Code,(
recognize(the(concurrent(jurisdiction(of(civil(courts(and(the(IPO(over(unfair(competition(
cases.(
! The(essential(elements(of(an(action(for(unfair(competition(are((1)(confusing(similarity(in(the(
general( appearance( of( the( goods( and( (2)( intent( to( deceive( the( public( and( defraud( a(
competitor.(The(confusing(similarity(may(or(may(not(result(from(similarity(in(the(marks,(
but(may(result(from(other(external(factors(in(the(packaging(or(presentation(of(the(goods.(
The(intent(to(deceive(and(defraud(may(be(inferred(from(the(similarity(of(the(appearance(
of(the(goods(as(offered(for(sale(to(the(public.(Actual(fraudulent(intent(need(not(be(shown.(
! WON#respondent#Sehwani#is#liable#of#unfair#competition.(
! Yes.(The(evidence(on(record(shows(that(the(respondents(were(not(using(their(registered(
trademark( but( that( of( the( petitioner.( Further,( respondents( are( giving( their( products( the(
general(appearance(that(would(likely(influence(purchasers(to(believe(that(these(products(
are(those(of(the(petitioner.(The(intention(to(deceive(may(be(inferred(from(the(similarity(of(
the(goods(as(packed(and(offered(for(sale,(and,(thus,(action(will(lie(to(restrain(such(unfair(
competition.( Also,( respondent’s( use( of( INGNGOUT( BURGER( in( busineses( signages(
reveals(fraudulent(intent(to(deceive(purchasers.(
(
(
(
(
FEIST'PUBLICATIONS,'INC.'v.'RURAL'TELEPHONE'SERVICE'CO(
! Copyright(treats(facts(and(factual(compilations(in(a(wholly(consistent(manner.(Facts,(whether(
alone(or(as(part(of(a(compilation,(are(not(original(and(therefore(may(not(be(copyrighted.(
A( factual( compilation( is( eligible( for( copyright( if( it( features( an( original( selection( or(
arrangement( of( facts,( but( the( copyright( is( limited( to( the( particular( selection( or(
arrangement.(In(no(event(may(copyright(extend(to(the(facts(themselves.(
! To#qualify#for#copyright#protection,#a#work#must#be#original#to#the#author,#which#means#
that#the#work#was#independently#created#by#the#author,#and#it#possesses#at#least#
some# minimal# degree# of# creativity.( A( work( may( be( original( even( thought( it( closely(
resembles(other(works(so(long(as(the(similarity(is(fortuitous,(not(the(result(of(copying.(
! WON( the( names,( addresses,( and( phone( numbers( in( a( telephone( directory( able( to( be(
copyrighted.(
! No.( Facts( cannot( be( copyrighted,( however( compilations( of( facts( can( generally( be(
copyrighted.(
! To(qualify(for(copyright(protection,(a(work(must(be(original(to(the(author,(which(means(
that(the(work(was(independently(created(by(the(author,(and(it(possesses(at(least(some(
minimal(degree(of(creativity.(A(work(may(be(original(even(thought(it(closely(resembles(
other(works(so(long(as(the(similarity(is(fortuitous,(not(the(result(of(copying.(
! Facts(are(not(original.(The(first(person(to(find(and(report(a(particular(fact(has(not(created(
the(fact\(he(has(merely(discovered(its(existence.(Facts(may(not(be(copyrighted(and(are(
part(of(the(public(domain(available(to(every(person.(
 ! Factual(compilations(may(possess(the(requisite(originality.(The(author(chooses(what(
facts(to(include,(in(what(order(to(place(them,(and(how(to(arrange(the(collected(date(so(
they(may(be(effectively(used(by(readers.(Thus,(even(a(directory(that(contains(no(written(
expression( that( could( be( protected,( only( facts,( meets( the( constitutional( minimum( for(
copyright(protection(if(it(features(an(original(selection(or(arrangement.(But,(even(though(
the(format(is(original,(the(facts(themselves(do(not(become(original(through(association.(
The( copyright( on( a( factual( compilation( is( limited( to( formatting.( The( copyright( does( not(
extend(to(the(facts(themselves.(
! To#establish#copyright#infringement,#two#elements#must#be#proven:#ownership#of#
a# valid# copyright# and# copying# of# constituent# elements# of# the# work# that# are#
original.(The( first( element( is( met( in( this( case( because( the( directory( contains( some(
forward(text.(As(to(the(second(element,(the(information(contains(facts,(which(cannot(be(
copyrighted.(They(existed(before(being(reported(and(would(have(continued(to(exist(if(a(
telephone(directory(had(never(been(published.(There(is(no(originality(in(the(formatting,(so(
there(is(no(copyrightable(expression.(Thus,(there(is(no(copyright(infringement.(
! The(primary(objective(of(copyright(is(not(to(reward(the(labor(of(authors,(but("to(promote(the(
Progress(of(Science(and(useful(Arts."(
(
(
Joaquin'v.'Drilon'G.R'No.'108946,'28'Jan'1999),'302'SCRA'225(
! The(format(of(a(show(is(not(a(copyrightable(under(Section(2(of(P.D.(49GGG(To(begin(with,(the(
format(of(a(show(is(not(copyrightable.(Section(2(of(P.D.(No.(49,[10](otherwise(known(as(
the(DECREE(ON(INTELLECTUAL(PROPERTY,(enumerates(the(classes(of(work(entitled(
to(copyright(protection,(to(wit:(Section(2.(The(rights(granted(by(this(Decree(shall,(from(the(
moment(of(creation,(subsist(with(respect(to(any(of(the(following(classes(of(works:(
(A)( Books,( including( composite( and( cyclopedic( works,( manuscripts,( directories,( and(
gazetteers\(
(B)(Periodicals,(including(pamphlets(and(newspapers\(
(C)(Lectures,(sermons,(addresses,(dissertations(prepared(for(oral(delivery\(
(D)(Letters\(
(E)( Dramatic( or( dramaticoGmusical( compositions\( choreographic( works( and(
entertainments(in(dumb(shows,(the(acting(form(of(which(is(fixed(in(writing(or(otherwise\(
(F)(Musical(compositions,(with(or(without(words\(
(G)(Works(of(drawing,(painting,(architecture,(sculpture,(engraving,(lithography,(and(other(
works(of(art\(models(or(designs(for(works(of(art\(
(H)(Reproductions(of(a(work(of(art\(
(I)( Original( ornamental( designs( or( models( for( articles( of( manufacture,( whether( or( not(
patentable,(and(other(works(of(applied(art\(
(J)(Maps,(plans,(sketches,(and(charts\(
(K)(Drawings(or(plastic(works(of(a(scientific(or(technical(character\(
(L)( Photographic( works( and( works( produced( by( a( process( analogous( to( photography\(
lantern(slides\(
(M)( Cinematographic( works( and( works( produced( by( a( process( analogous( to(
cinematography(or(any(process(for(making(audioGvisual(recordings\(
(N)(Computer(programs\(
(O)(Prints,(pictorial(illustrations(advertising(copies,(labels,(tags,(and(box(wraps\(
 (P)( Dramatizations,( translations,( adaptations,( abridgements,( arrangements( and( other(
alterations(of(literary,(musical(or(artistic(works(or(of(works(of(the(Philippine(government(
as(herein(defined,(which(shall(be(protected(as(provided(in(Section(8(of(this(Decree.(
(Q)(Collections(of(literary,(scholarly,(or(artistic(works(or(of(works(referred(to(in(Section(9(
of( this( Decree( which( by( reason( of( the( selection( and( arrangement( of( their( contents(
constitute( intellectual( creations,( the( same( to( be( protected( as( such( in( accordance( with(
Section(8(of(this(Decree.(
(R)(Other(literary,(scholarly,(scientific(and(artistic(works.(
This( provision( is( substantially( the( same( as( §172( of( the( INTELLECTUAL( PROPERTY(
CODE(OF(THE(PHILIPPINES((R.A.(No.(8293)(
! The(format(or(mechanics(of(a(television(show(is(not(included(in(the(list(of(protected(works(in(
§2(of(P.D.(No.(49.((For(this(reason,(the(protection(afforded(by(the(law(cannot(be(extended(
to(cover(them.(Copyright,(in(the(strict(sense(of(the(term,(is(purely(a(statutory(right.(It(is(a(
new( or( independent( right( granted( by( the( statute,( and( not( simply( a( preGexisting( right(
regulated((by(the(statute.((Being(a(statutory(grant,(the(rights(are(only(such(as(the(statute(
confers,(and(may(be(obtained(and(enjoyed(only(with(respect(to(the(subjects(and(by(the(
persons,( and( on( terms( and( conditions( specified( in( the( statute.( Since(( .( .( .( copyright( in(
published( works( is( purely( a( statutory( creation,( a( copyright( may( be( obtained( only( for( a(
work(falling(within(the(statutory(enumeration(or(description.(Regardless(of(the(historical(
viewpoint,( it( is( authoritatively( settled( in( the( United( States( that( there( is( no( copyright(
except((that((which((is((both((created((and(secured(by(act(of(Congress.(
! Copyright,(in(a(strict(sense,(is(purely(a(statutory(right.(P.D.(No.(49,(§2,(in(enumerating(what(
are(subject(to(copyright,(refers(to(finished(works(and(not(to(concepts.(The(copyright(does(
not( extend( to( an( idea,( procedure,( process,( system,( method( of( operation,( concept,(
principle,( or( discovery,( regardless( of( the( form( in( which( it( is( described,( explained,(
illustrated,(or(embodied(in(such(work.(Thus,(the(new(INTELLECTUAL(PROPERTY(CODE(
OF( THE( PHILIPPINES( provides:( Sec.( 175.(( Unprotected( Subject( Matter.( G(
Notwithstanding(the(provisions(of(Sections(172(and(173,(no(protection(shall(extend,(under(
this( law,( to( any( idea,( procedure,( system,( method( or( operation,( concept,( principle,(
discovery( or( mere( data( as( such,( even( if( they( are( expressed,( explained,( illustrated( or(
embodied(in(a(work\(news(of(the(day(and(other(miscellaneous(facts(having(the(character(
of(mere(items(of(press(information\(or(any(official(text(of(a(legislative,(administrative(or(
legal(nature,(as(well(as(any(official(translation(thereof.(
! The( copyright( does( not( extend( to( the( general( concept( or( format( of( its( dating( game(
show.(What( then( is( the( subject( matter( of( petitioners’( copyright?(( This( Court( is( of( the(
opinion(that(petitioner(BJPI’s(copyright(covers(audioGvisual(recordings(of(each(episode(of(
Rhoda(and(Me,(as(falling(within(the(class(of(works(mentioned(in(P.D.(49,(§2(M),(to(wit:(
Cinematographic(works(and(works(produced(by(a(process(analogous(to(cinematography(
or(any(process(for(making(audioGvisual(recordings\(The(copyright(does(not(extend(to(the(
general(concept(or(format(of(its(dating(game(show.(Accordingly,(by(the(very(nature(of(the(
subject( of( petitioner( BJPI’s( copyright,( the( investigating( prosecutor( should( have( the(
opportunity(to(compare(the(videotapes(of(the(two(shows.(
! Mere(description(by(words(of(the(general(format(of(the(two(dating(game(shows(is(insufficient\(
the( presentation( of( the( master( videotape( in( evidence( was( indispensable( to( the(
determination( of( the( existence( of( probable( cause.(( As( aptly( observed( by( respondent(
Secretary( of( Justice:( A( television( show( includes( more( than( mere( words( can( describe(
 because(it(involves(a(whole(spectrum(of(visuals(and(effects,(video(and(audio,(such(that(
no( similarity( or( dissimilarity( may( be( found( by( merely( describing( the( general(
copyright/format(of(both(dating(game(shows.(
(
(
(
Santos'vs.'McCullough'Printing'Co.,'GR'No.'19439,'October'31,'1964,'12'SCRA'
321(
! An( intellectual(( creation( should( be( copyrighted(
within((the((periods((provided((by((law,((failure((of((which((renders((such((creation((public(
property.(
! For(there(to(be(a(limited(publications(or(prohibition,(such(fact(must(appear(on(the(face(of(the(
design.(When( the( purpose( is( a( limited( publication,( but(
the((effect((is((a((general((publication,((irrevocable((rights((thereon((become((vested((in((the(
general( public.( Exclusive( right( of( owner( to( publish( limited( to( first( publication( unless(
copyrighted.GG( The( author( of( a( literary( composition( has( a( right( to( the( first( publication(
thereof.( He( has( a( right( to( determine( whether( it( shall( be( published( at(
all,((and((if((published,((when,((where,((by(whom,(and(in((what(form.(This(exclusive(right(is(
confined( to( the( first( publication.( Once( published,( it( is( dedicated( to( the( public,(( and( the(
author(loses,(the(exclusive(right(to(control(subsequent((publication(by(others,((unless((the(
work(is((placed((under(the((protection(of((the((copyright((law.(
(
(
(
(
Filipino'Society'of'Composers'v.'Tan,'G.R.'No.'Lc36402,'March'16,'1987,'148'
SCRA'461(
! Music(provided(by(a(combo(in(a(restaurant(constitutes(public(performance(for(profit(within(
the(meaning(of(the(Copyright(Law.(In(the(case(at(bar,(it(is(admitted(that(the(patrons(of(the(
restaurant(in(question(pay(only(for(the(food(and(drinks(and(apparently(not(for(listening(to(
the(music.(As(found(by(the(trial(court,(the(music(provided(is(for(the(purpose(of(entertaining(
and( amusing( the( customers( in( order( to( make( the( establishment( more( attractive( and(
desirable.(It( will( be( noted( that( for( the( playing( and( singing( the( musical( compositions(
involved,(the(combo(was(paid(as(independent(contractors(by(the(appellant(.(It(is(therefore(
obvious(that(the(expenses(entailed(thereby(are(added(to(the(overhead(of(the(restaurant(
which(are(either(eventually(charged(in(the(price(of(the(food(and(drinks(or(to(the(overall(
total( of( additional( income( produced( by( the( bigger( volume( of( business( which( the(
entertainment(was(programmed(to(attract.(Consequently,(it#is#beyond#question#that#the#
playing#and#singing#of#the#combo#in#defendantFappellee's#restaurant#constituted#
performance#for#profit#contemplated#by#the#Copyright#Law.#(Act#3134#amended#by#
P.D.#No.#49,#as#amended).(
! If(the(general(public(has(made(use(of(the(object(sought(to(be(copyrighted(within(30(days(prior(
to(the(copyright(application,(the(law(deems(the(object(to(have(been(donated(to(the(public(
domain(and(can(no(longer(be(copyrighted(as(in(the(case(of(the(songs(at(bar.(The(Supreme(
Court( has( ruled( that( "Paragraph( 33( of( Patent( Office( Administrative( Order( No.( 3( (as(
amended,(dated(September(18,(1947)(entitled('Rules(of(Practice(in(the(Philippines(Patent(
Office(relating(to(the(Registration(of(Copyright(Claims'(promulgated(pursuant(to(Republic(
Act(165,(provides(among(other(things(that(an(intellectual(creation(should(be(copyrighted(
 thirty( (30)( days( after( its( publication,( if( made( in( Manila,( or( within( the( (60)( days( if( made(
elsewhere,(failure(of(which(renders(such(creation(public(property."((Santos(v.(McCullough(
Printing(Company,(12(SCRA(324G325([1964].(Indeed,(if(the(general(public(has(made(use(
of(the(object(sought(to(be(copyrighted(for(thirty((30)(days(prior(to(the(copyright(application(
the(law(deems(the(object(to(have(been(donated(to(the(public(domain(and(the(same(can(
no(longer(be(copyrighted.(
! A(careful(study(of(the(records(reveals(that(the(song("Dahil(Sa(Iyo"(which(was(registered(on(
April(20,(1956((Brief(for(Appellant,(p.(10)(became(popular(in(radios,(juke(boxes,(etc.(long(
before(registration((TSN,(May(28,(1968,(pp.(3G5\(25)(while(the(song("The(Nearness(Of(
You"( registered( on( January( 14,( 1955( (Brief( for( Appellant,( p.( 10)( had( become( popular(
twenty(five((25)(years(prior(to(1968,((the(year(of(the(hearing)(or(from(1943((TSN,(May(28,(
1968,( p.( 27)( and( the( songs( "Sapagkat( Ikaw( Ay( Akin"( and( "Sapagkat( Kami( Ay( Tao(
Lamang"(both(registered(on(July(10,(1966,(appear(to(have(been(known(and(sang(by(the(
witnesses(as(early(as(1965(or(three(years(before(the(hearing(in(1968.(The(testimonies(of(
the(witnesses(at(the(hearing(of(this(case(on(this(subject(were(unrebutted(by(the(appellant.(
(Ibid,( pp.( 28\( 29( and( 30).(Under( the( circumstances,( it( is( clear( that( the( musical(
compositions(in(question(had(long(become(public(property,(and(are(therefore(beyond(the(
protection(of(the(Copyright(Law.(
(
(
Ching'vs.'Salinas,'GR'No.'161295,'June'29,'2005,'462'SCRA'241(
! The(RTC(had(jurisdiction(to(delve(into(and(resolve(the(issue(whether(the(petitioner(’s(utility(
models(are(copyrightable(and,(if(so,(whether(he(is(the(owner(of(a(copyright(over(the(said(
models.((
! For(the(RTC(to(determine(whether(the(crime(for(infringement(under(R.A.(No.(8293(as(alleged(
in( an( application( is( committed,( the( petitionerGapplicant( was( burdened( to( prove( that( (a)(
respondents(Jessie(Ching(and(Joseph(Yu(were(the(owners(of(copyrighted(material\(and(
(b)(the(copyrighted(material(was(being(copied(and(distributed(by(the(respondents.((Thus,(
the(ownership(of(a(valid(copyright(is(essential.(
! Ownership(of(copyrighted(material(is(shown(by(proof(of(originality(and(copyrightability.((By(
originality( is( meant( that( the( material( was( not( copied,( and( evidence(( s( at( least( minimal(
creativity\(that(it(was(independently(created(by(the(author(and(that(it(possesses(at(least(
same(minimal(degree(of(creativity.(
! Copying( is( shown( by( proof( of( access( to( copyrighted( material( and( substantial( similarity(
between(the(two(works.(
! It(bears(stressing(that(the(focus(of(copyright(is(the(usefulness(of(the(artistic(design,(and(not(
its( marketability.(( The( central( inquiry( is( whether( the( article( is( a( work( of( art.]( Works( for(
applied(art(include(all(original(pictorials,(graphics,(and(sculptural(works(that(are(intended(
to( be( or( have( been( embodied( in( useful( article( regardless( of( factors( such( as( mass(
production,( commercial( exploitation,( and( the( potential( availability( of( design( patent(
protection.(
! As(gleaned(from(the(description(of(the(models(and(their(objectives,(these(articles(are(useful(
articles(which(are(defined(as(one(having(an(intrinsic(utilitarian(function(that(is(not(merely(
to(portray(the(appearance(of(the(article(or(to(convey(information.((Indeed,(while(works(of(
applied(art,(original(intellectual,(literary(and(artistic(works(are(copyrightable,(useful(articles(
and(works(of(industrial(design(are(not.(A(useful(article(may(be(copyrightable(only(if(and(
only(to(the(extent(that(such(design(incorporates(pictorial,(graphic,(or(sculptural(features(
 that(can(be(identified(separately(from,(and(are(capable(of(existing(independently(of(the(
utilitarian(aspects(of(the(article.(
! In(this(case,(the(petitioner’s(models(are(not(works(of(applied(art,(nor(artistic(works.((They(are(
utility(models,(useful(articles,(albeit(with(no(artistic(design(or(value.(
! A(utility(model(is(a(technical(solution(to(a(problem(in(any(field(of(human(activity(which(is(new(
and( industrially( applicable.(( It( may( be,( or( may( relate( to,( a( product,( or( process,( or( an(
improvement(of(any(of(the(aforesaid.(Essentially,(a(utility(model(refers(to(an(invention(in(
the(mechanical(field.((This(is(the(reason(why(its(object(is(sometimes(described(as(a(device(
or(useful(object.(
! UTILITY(MODEL(v.(INVENTION:(first,(the(requisite(of(“inventive(step”(in(a(patent(for(invention(
is(not(required\(second,(the(maximum(term(of(protection(is(only(seven(years(compared(to(
a( patent( which( is( twenty( years,(( in( a( patent( for(( both( reckoned( from( the( date( of( the(
application\( and( third,( the( provisions( on( utility( model( dispense( with( its( substantive(
examination(and(prefer(for(a(less(complicated(system.(
! No(copyright(granted(by(law(can(be(said(to(arise(in(favor(of(the(petitioner(despite(the(issuance(
of(the(certificates(of(copyright(registration(and(the(deposit(of(the(Leaf(Spring(Eye(Bushing(
and(Vehicle(Bearing(Cushion.(
! That(the(works(of(the(petitioner(may(be(the(proper(subject(of(a(patent(does(not(entitle(him(to(
the( issuance( of( a( search( warrant( for( violation( of( copyright( laws.(( In( Kho( v.( Court( of(
Appeals[49]( and( Pearl( &( Dean( (Phil.),( Incorporated( v.( Shoemart,( Incorporated,[50]( the(
Court(ruled(that(“these(copyright(and(patent(rights(are(completely(distinct(and(separate(
from(one(another,(and(the(protection(afforded(by(one(cannot(be(used(interchangeably(to(
cover(items(or(works(that(exclusively(pertain(to(the(others.(
! In(this(case,(the(bushing(and(cushion(are(not(works(of(art.((They(are,(as(the(petitioner(himself(
admitted,(utility(models(which(may(be(the(subject(of(a(patent.(
(
Manly'Sportwear'Manufacturing'Inc.vs.'Dadodette,'GR'No.'165306,'September'20,'
2005,'470'SCRA'384(
! Where(the(copyrighted(products(do(not(appear(to(be(original(creations(and(are(not(among(
the(classes(of(work(enumerated(under(Section(172(of(RA(8293,(trial(court(may(not(be(
faulted(for(overturning(its(initial(assessment(that(there(was(probable(cause(in(view(of(its(
inherent(power(to(issue(search(warrants(and(to(quash(the(same.(In(the(instant(case,(we(
find(that(the(trial(court(did(not(abuse(its(discretion(when(it(entertained(the(motion(to(quash(
considering( that( no( criminal( action( has( yet( been( instituted( when( it( was( filed.(( The( trial(
court( also( properly( quashed( the( search( warrant( it( earlier( issued( after( finding( upon(
reevaluation(of(the(evidence(that(no(probable(cause(exists(to(justify(its(issuance(in(the(
first( place.(( As( ruled( by( the( trial( court,( the( copyrighted( products( do( not( appear( to( be(
original(creations(of(MANLY(and(are(not(among(the(classes(of(work(enumerated(under(
Section(172(of(RA(8293.((The(trial(court,(thus,(may(not(be(faulted(for(overturning(its(initial(
assessment(that(there(was(probable(cause(in(view(of(its(inherent(power(to(issue(search(
warrants(and(to(quash(the(same.((No(objection(may(be(validly(posed(to(an(order(quashing(
a(warrant(already(issued(as(the(court(must(be(provided(with(the(opportunity(to(correct(
itself(of(an(error(unwittingly(committed,(or,(with(like(effect,(to(allow(the(aggrieved(party(the(
chance(to(convince(the(court(that(its(ruling(is(erroneous.(
! The( order( quashing( a( search( warrant( is( not( res( judicata( on( the( issue( of( copyright(
infringementG( the( applicant( for( a( search( warrant( could( still( file( a( separate( copyright(
infringement(suit(against(the(respondents.((As(correctly(observed(by(the(Court(of(Appeals,(
 the( trial( court’s( finding( that( the( seized( products( are( not( copyrightable( was( merely(
preliminary(as(it(did(not(finally(and(permanently(adjudicate(on(the(status(and(character(of(
the(seized(items.((MANLY(could(still(file(a(separate(copyright(infringement(suit(against(the(
respondents(because(the(order(for(the(issuance(or(quashal(of(a(warrant(is(not(res(judicata.(
Thus,( in( Vlasons( Enterprises( Corporation( v.( Court( of( Appeals[14]( we( held( that:(( The(
proceeding(for(the(seizure(of(property(in(virtue(of(a(search(warrant(does(not(end(with(the(
actual(taking(of(the(property(by(the(proper(officers(and(its(delivery,(usually(constructive,(
to( the( court.(( The( order( for( the( issuance( of( the( warrant( is( not( a( final( one( and( cannot(
constitute(res(judicata.(Such(an(order(does(not(ascertain(and(adjudicate(the(permanent(
status( or( character( of( the( seized( property.(( By( its( very( nature,( it( is( provisional,(
interlocutory.(It(is(merely(the(first(step(in(the(process(to(determine(the(character(and(title(
of(the(property.((That(determination(is(done(in(the(criminal(action(involving(the(crime(or(
crimes(in(connection(with(which(the(search(warrant(was(issued.((Hence,(such(a(criminal(
action(should(be(prosecuted,(or(commenced(if(not(yet(instituted,(and(prosecuted.((The(
outcome(of(the(criminal(action(will(dictate(the(disposition(of(the(seized(property…(
! Further,( the( copyright( certificates( issued( in( favor( of( MANLY( constitute( merely( prima( facie(
evidence(of(validity(and(ownership.((However,(no(presumption(of(validity(is(created(where(
other(evidence(exist(that(may(cast(doubt(on(the(copyright(validity.(Hence,(where(there(is(
sufficient( proof( that( the( copyrighted( products( are( not( original( creations( but( are( readily(
available(in(the(market(under(various(brands,(as(in(this(case,(validity(and(originality(will(
not(be(presumed(and(the(trial(court(may(properly(quash(the(issued(warrant(for(lack(of(
probable(cause.(
! At(most,(the#certificates#of#registration#and#deposit#issued#by#the#National#Library#and#
the#Supreme#Court#Library#serve#merely#as#a#notice#of#recording#and#registration#
of#the#work#but#do#not#confer#any#right#or#title#upon#the#registered#copyright#owner#
or#automatically#put#his#work#under#the#protective#mantle#of#the#copyright#law.#It#is#
not#a#conclusive#proof#of#copyright#ownership.((As(it(is,(nonGregistration(and(deposit(
of(the(work(within(the(prescribed(period(only(makes(the(copyright(owner(liable(to(pay(a(
fine.(
(
(
(
UNILEVER'Philippines'vs.'CA'and'Procter'and'Gamble,'Phils'Inc.,'G.R.'No.'
119280,'(August'10,'2006),'498'SCRA'334(
! Injunction( is( resorted( to( only( when( there( is( a( pressing( necessity( to( avoid( injurious(
consequences( which( cannot( be( remedied( under( any( standard( compensation.[7]( As(
correctly(ruled(by(the(CA,(there(was(an(extreme(urgency(to(grant(the(preliminary(injunction(
prayed(for(by(P&GP(considering(that(TV(commercials(are(aired(for(a(limited(period(of(time(
only.((In(fact,(this(Court(takes(note(of(the(fact(that(the(TV(commercial(in(issue(―(the(Kite(
TV(advertisement(―(is(no(longer(aired(today,(more(than(10(years(after(the(injunction(was(
granted(on(September(16,(1994.(
(
(
(
(
(
Sambar'vs.'Levi'Strauss'&'Co./,'GR'No.'132604,'('March'6,'2002),'378'SCRA'364(
! Did(petitioner(infringe(on(private(respondents’(arcuate(design?(
 ! We(find(no(reason(to(disturb(the(findings(of(the(Court(of(Appeals(that(Europress’(use(of(
the(arcuate(design(was(an(infringement(of(the(Levi’s(design.(
! Must(we(hold(petitioner(solidarily(liable(with(CVS(Garments(Industrial(Corporation?(Both(the(
courts(below(found(that(petitioner(had(a(copyright(over(Europress’(arcuate(design(and(
that(he(consented(to(the(use(of(said(design(by(CVSGIC.((We(are(bound(by(this(finding,(
especially(in(the(absence(of(a(showing(that(it(was(tainted(with(arbitrariness(or(palpable(
error.[7](It(must(be(stressed(that(it(was(immaterial(whether(or(not(petitioner(was(connected(
with(CVSGIC.((What(is(relevant(is(that(petitioner(had(a(copyright(over(the(design(and(that(
he(allowed(the(use(of(the(same(by(CVSGIC.(
(
! To(be(entitled(to(copyright,(the(thing(being(copyrighted(must(be(original,(created(by(the(author(
through(his(own(skill,(labor(and(judgment,(without(directly(copying(or(evasively(imitating(
the(work(of(another.(From(the(foregoing(discussion,(it(is(clear(that(the(matters(raised(by(
petitioner(in(relation(to(the(last(issue(are(purely(factual,(except(the(matter(of(nominal(and(
temperate( damages.(( Petitioner( claims( that( damages( are( not( due( private( respondents(
and( his( copyright( should( not( be( cancelled( because( he( had( not( infringed( on( Levi’s(
trademark.((Both# the# trial# court# and# the# Court# of# Appeals# found# there# was#
infringement.## Thus,# the# award# of# damages# and# cancellation# of# petitioner’s#
copyright#are#appropriate.,Award#of#damages#is#clearly#provided#in#Section#23#of#
the#Trademark#law,#while#cancellation#of#petitioner’s#copyright#finds#basis#on#the#
fact#that#the#design#was#a#mere#copy#of#that#of#private#respondents’#trademark.,(To(
be(entitled(to(copyright,(the(thing(being(copyrighted(must(be(original,(created(by(the(author(
through(his(own(skill,(labor(and(judgment,(without(directly(copying(or(evasively(imitating(
the(work(of(another(
! However,( we( agree( with( petitioner( that( it( was( error( for( the( Court( of( Appeals( to( affirm( the(
award( of( nominal( damages( combined( with( temperate( damages( by( the( Regional( Trial(
Court(of(Makati.((What(respondents(are(entitled(to(is(an(award(for(temperate(damages,(
not( nominal( damages.(( For( although( the( exact( amount( of( damage( or( loss( can( not( be(
determined( with( reasonable( certainty,( the(fact( that( there( was( infringement( means( they(
suffered(losses(for(which(they(are(entitled(to(moderate(damages.(We(find(that(the(award(
of(P50,000.00(as(temperate(damages(fair(and(reasonable,(considering(the(circumstances(
herein(as(well(as(the(global(coverage(and(reputation(of(private(respondents(Levi(Strauss(
&(Company(and(Levi(Strauss((Phil.),(Inc.(
(
(
Bayanihan'Music'vs.'BMG,'Jose'Mari'Chan,'GR'No.'166337,'March'7,'2005,'452'
scra(
! A(court(should,(as(much(as(possible,(avoid(issuing(the(writ(which(would(effectively(dispose(
of(the(main(case(without(trial.(
! (1)(there(must(be(a(right(in(esse(or(the(existence(of(a(right(to(be(protected\(and((2)(the(act(
against(which(the(injunction(is(to(be(directed(is(a(violation(of(such(right,[5]cralaw(the(trial(
court(threaded(the(correct(path(in(denying(petitioner's(prayer(therefor.(For,(such(a(writ(
should(only(be(granted(if(a(party(is(clearly(entitled(thereto.(
! Of( course,( while( a( clear( showing( of( the( right( to( an( injunctive( writ( is( necessary( albeit( its(
existence( need( not( be( conclusively( established,[7]cralaw( as( the( evidence( required(
therefor( need( not( be( conclusive( or( complete,( still,( for( an( applicant,( like( petitioner(
Bayanihan,(to(be(entitled(to(the(writ,(he(is(required(to(show(that(he(has(the(ostensible(
 right(to(the(final(relief(prayed(for(in(its(complaint.[8]cralaw(Here,(the(trial(court(did(not(find(
ample(justifications(for(the(issuance(of(the(writ(prayed(for(by(petitioner.(
! respondent( Chan,( being( undeniably( the( composer( and( author( of( the( lyrics( of( the( two( (2)(
songs,(is(protected(by(the(mere(fact(alone(that(he(is(the(creator(thereof(
! An(examination(of(petitioner's(verified(complaint(in(light(of(the(two((2)(contracts(sued(upon(
and( the( evidence( it( adduced( during( the( hearing( on( the( application( for( preliminary(
injunction,( yields( not( the( existence( of( the( requisite( right( protectable( by( the( provisional(
relief(but(rather(a(lingering(doubt(on(whether(there(is(or(there(is(no(such(right.(xxx(It(would(
thus(appear(that(the(two((2)(contracts(expired(on(October(1,(1975(and(March(11,(1978,(
respectively,(there(being(neither(an(allegation,(much(less(proof,(that(petitioner(Bayanihan(
ever(made(use(of(the(compositions(within(the(twoGyear(period(agreed(upon(by(the(parties(
! Anent(the(copyrights(obtained(by(petitioner(on(the(basis(of(the(selfsame(two((2)(contracts,(
suffice(it(to(say('that(such(purported(copyrights(are(not(presumed(to(subsist(in(accordance(
with( Section( 218[a]( and( [b],( of( the( Intellectual( Property( Code,[10]cralaw( because(
respondent(Chan(had(put(in(issue(the(existence(thereof.(
! It(is(noted(that(Chan(revoked(and(terminated(said(contracts,(along(with(others,(on(July(30,(
1997,(or(almost(two(years(before(petitioner(Bayanihan(wrote(its(sort(of(complaint/demand(
letter(dated(December(7,(1999(regarding(the(recent("use/recording(of(the(songs('Can(We(
Just(Stop(and(Talk(A(While'(and('Afraid(for(Love(to(Fade,'"(or(almost(three((3)(years(before(
petitioner(filed(its(complaint(on(August(8,(2000,(therein(praying,(inter(alia,(for(injunctive(
relief.(
(
(
Habana'vs.'Robles'GR'No.'131522,'July'19,'1999,'310'SCRA'511(
! We( believe( that( respondent( Robles’( act( of( lifting( from( the( book( of( petitionerssubstantial'
portions(of(discussions(and(examples,(and(her(failure(to(acknowledge(the(same(in(her(
book( is( an( infringement( of( petitioners’( copyrights.( When( is( there( a( substantial(
reproduction(of(a(book?((It(does(not(necessarily(require(that(the(entire(copyrighted(work,(
or(even(a(large(portion(of(it,(be(copied.(If(so(much(is(taken(that(the(value(of(the(original(
work(is(substantially(diminished,(there(is(an(infringement(of(copyright(and(to(an(injurious(
extent,(the(work(is(appropriated.(
! In(determining(the(question(of(infringement,(the(amount(of(matter(copied(from(the(copyrighted(
work(is(an(important(consideration.((To(constitute(infringement,(it(is(not(necessary(that(
the(whole(or(even(a(large(portion(of(the(work(shall(have(been(copied.((If(so(much(is(taken(
that(the(value(of(the(original(is(sensibly(diminished,(or(the(labors(of(the(original(author(are(
substantially(and(to(an(injurious(extent(appropriated(by(another,(that(is(sufficient(in(point(
of( law( to( constitute( piracy.( The( essence( of( intellectual( piracy( should( be( essayed( in(
conceptual( terms( in( order( to( underscore( its( gravity( by( an( appropriate( understanding(
thereof.((Infringement( of( a( copyright( is( a( trespass( on( a( private( domain( owned( and(
occupied(by(the(owner(of(the(copyright,(and,(therefore,(protected(by(law,(and(infringement(
of( copyright,( or( piracy,( which( is( a( synonymous( term( in( this( connection,( consists( in( the(
doing(by(any(person,(without(the(consent(of(the(owner(of(the(copyright,(of(anything(the(
sole(right(to(do(which(is(conferred(by(statute(on(the(owner(of(the(copyright.(
! Even( if( two( authors( were( of( the( same( background( in( terms( of( teaching( experience( and(
orientation,(it(is(not(an(excuse(for(them(to(be(identical(even(in(examples(contained(in(their(
books.(The(respondents(claim(that(their(similarity(in(style(can(be(attributed(to(the(fact(that(
both( of( them( were( exposed( to( the( APCAS( syllabus( and( their( respective( academic(
 experience,(teaching(approach(and(methodology(are(almost(identical(because(they(were(
of(the(same(background.(However,(we(believe(that(even(if(petitioners(and(respondent(
Robles(were(of(the(same(background(in(terms(of(teaching(experience(and(orientation,(it(
is(not(an(excuse(for(them(to(be(identical(even(in(examples(contained(in(their(books.((The(
similarities(in(examples(and(material(contents(are(so(obviously(present(in(this(case.((How(
can((similar/identical(examples(not(be(considered(as(a(mark(of(copying?(
! In#cases#of#infringement,#copying#alone#is#not#what#is#prohibited.##The#copying#must#
produce#an#“injurious#effect”.##Here,(the(injury(consists(in(that(respondent(Robles(lifted(
from( petitioners’( book( materials( that( were( the( result( of( the( latter’s( research( work( and(
compilation( and( misrepresented( them( as( her( own.(( She( circulated( the( book( DEP( for(
commercial(use(and(did(not(acknowledge(petitioners(as(her(source.(
! Hence,( there( is( a( clear( case( of( appropriation( of( copyrighted( work( for( her( benefit( that(
respondent(Robles(committed.((Petitioners’(work(as(authors(is(the(product(of(their(long(
and(assiduous(research(and(for(another(to(represent(it(as(her(own(is(injury(enough.((In(
copyrighting( books( the( purpose( is( to( give( protection( to( the( intellectual( product( of( an(
author.((This( is( precisely( what( the( law( on( copyright( protected,( under( Section( 184.1(
(b).((Quotations(from(a(published(work(if(they(are(compatible(with(fair(use(and(only(to(the(
extent( justified( by( the( purpose,( including( quotations( from( newspaper( articles( and(
periodicals(in(the(form(of(press(summaries(are(allowed(provided(that(the(source(and(the(
name(of(the(author,(if(appearing(on(the(work,(are(mentioned.(
! In(the(case(at(bar,(the(least(that(respondent(Robles(could(have(done(was(to(acknowledge(
petitioners(Habana(et.(al.(as(the(source(of(the(portions(of(DEP.((The(final(product(of(an(
author’s( toil( is( her( book.((To( allow( another( to( copy( the( book( without(( appropriate(
acknowledgment(is(injury(enough.(
(
(
(
(
Microsoft'Corp.vs.'Maxicorp'Inc.,GR'No.'140946,'Sept.'13,'2004(
! WHETHER(THE(PETITION(RAISES(QUESTIONS(OF(LAW\(Indeed,(this(case(falls(under(
one( of( the( exceptions( because( the( findings( of( the( Court( of( Appeals( conflict( with( the(
findings(of(the(RTC.[16](Since(petitioners(properly(raised(the(conflicting(findings(of(the(
lower(courts,(it(is(proper(for(this(Court(to(resolve(such(contradiction.(
! WHETHER(PETITIONERS(HAVE(LEGAL(PERSONALITY((TO((((FILE((THE(PETITION:(We(
ruled(in(Columbia(Pictures(Entertainment,(Inc.(v.(Court(of(Appeals[18](that(the(petitionerG
complainant(in(a(petition(for(review(under(Rule(45(could(argue(its(case(before(this(Court(
in(lieu(of(the(Solicitor(General(if(there(is(grave(error(committed(by(the(lower(court(or(lack(
of(due(process.(This(avoids(a(situation(where(a(complainant(who(actively(participated(in(
the(prosecution(of(a(case(would(suddenly(find(itself(powerless(to(pursue(a(remedy(due(to(
circumstances(beyond(its(control.(The(circumstances(in(Columbia(Pictures(Entertainment(
are(sufficiently(similar(to(the(present(case(to(warrant(the(application(of(this(doctrine.(
! WHETHER( THERE( WAS( PROBABLE( CAUSE( TO( ISSUE( THE(( SEARCH(( WARRANTS:(
The(Court(of(Appeals(based(its(reversal(on(two(factual(findings(of(the(RTC.((First,(the(fact(
that(the(sales(receipt(presented(by(NBI(Agent(Samiano(as(proof(that(he(bought(counterfeit(
goods( from( Maxicorp( was( in( the( name( of( a( certain( “Joel( Diaz.”( Second,( the( fact( that(
petitioners’(other(witness,(John(Benedict(Sacriz,(admitted(that(he(did(not(buy(counterfeit(
 goods( from( Maxicorp.( We( rule( that( the( Court( of( Appeals( erred( in( reversing( the( RTC’s(
findings.(
! The(offense(charged(against(Maxicorp(is(copyright(infringement(under(Section(29(of(PD(49(
and( unfair( competition( under( Article( 189( of( the( RPC.( To( support( these( charges,(
petitioners(presented(the(testimonies(of(NBI(Agent(Samiano,(computer(technician(Pante,(
and(Sacriz,(a(civilian.(The(offenses(that(petitioners(charged(Maxicorp(contemplate(several(
overt( acts.( The( sale( of( counterfeit( products( is( but( one( of( these( acts.( Both( NBI( Agent(
Samiano(and(Sacriz(related(to(the(RTC(how(they(personally(saw(Maxicorp(commit(acts(
of(infringement(and(unfair(competition.(
! During(the(preliminary(examination,(the(RTC(subjected(the(testimonies(of(the(witnesses(to(
the(requisite(examination.(NBI(Agent(Samiano(testified(that(he(saw(Maxicorp(display(and(
offer( for( sale( counterfeit( software( in( its( premises.( He( also( saw( how( the( counterfeit(
software(were(produced(and(packaged(within(Maxicorp’s(premises.((NBI(Agent(Samiano(
categorically(stated(that(he(was(certain(the(products(were(counterfeit(because(Maxicorp(
sold(them(to(its(customers(without(giving(the(accompanying(ownership(manuals,(license(
agreements(and(certificates(of(authenticity.(
! Sacriz( testified( that( during( his( visits( to( Maxicorp,( he( witnessed( several( instances( when(
Maxicorp( installed( petitioners’( software( into( computers( it( had( assembled.(( Sacriz( also(
testified( that( he( saw( the( sale( of( petitioners’( software( within( Maxicorp’s(
premises.((Petitioners(never(authorized(Maxicorp(to(install(or(sell(their(software.(
! The(testimonies(of(these(two(witnesses,(coupled(with(the(object(and(documentary(evidence(
they(presented,(are(sufficient(to(establish(the(existence(of(probable(cause.((From(what(
they( have( witnessed,( there( is( reason( to( believe( that( Maxicorp( engaged( in( copyright(
infringement( and( unfair( competition( to( the( prejudice( of( petitioners.( Both( NBI( Agent(
Samiano(and(Sacriz(were(clear(and(insistent(that(the(counterfeit(software(were(not(only(
displayed(and(sold(within(Maxicorp’s(premises,(they(were(also(produced,(packaged(and(
in(some(cases,(installed(there.(
! For(purposes(of(determining(probable(cause,(the(sales(receipt(is(not(the(only(proof(that(the(
sale( of( petitioners’( software( occurred.'' During' the' search' warrant' application'
proceedings,'NBI'Agent'Samiano'presented'to'the'judge'the'computer'unit'that'he'
purchased' from' Maxicorp,' in' which' computer' unit' Maxicorp' had' precinstalled'
petitioners’' software.[27]' Sacriz,' who' was' present' when' NBI' Agent' Samiano'
purchased' the' computer' unit,' affirmed' that' NBI' Agent' Samiano' purchased' the'
computer'unit.[28]'Pante,'the'computer'technician,'demonstrated'to'the'judge'the'
presence' of' petitioners’' software' on' the' same' computer' unit.[29]' There' was' a'
comparison'between'petitioners’'genuine'software'and'Maxicorp’s'software'prec
installed'in'the'computer'unit'that'NBI'Agent'Sambiano'purchased.[30](Even(if(we(
disregard(the(sales(receipt(issued(in(the(name(of(“Joel(Diaz,”(which(petitioners(explained(
was(the(alias(NBI(Agent(Samiano(used(in(the(operation,(there(still(remains(more(than(
sufficient(evidence(to(establish(probable(cause(for(the(issuance(of(the(search(warrants.(
! The(fact(that(Sacriz(did(not(actually(purchase(counterfeit(software(from(Maxicorp(does(not(
eliminate(the(existence(of(probable(cause.(Copyright(infringement(and(unfair(competition(
are(not(limited(to(the(act(of(selling(counterfeit(goods.(They(cover(a(whole(range(of(acts,(
from(copying,(assembling,(packaging(to(marketing,(including(the(mere(offering(for(sale(of(
the(counterfeit(goods.((The(clear(and(firm(testimonies(of(petitioners’(witnesses(on(such(
other(acts(stand(untarnished(
! WHETHER(THE(SEARCH(WARRANTS(ARE(“GENERAL(WARRANTS.”:(However,(we(find(
paragraph( (c)( of( the( search( warrants( lacking( in( particularity.( Paragraph( (c)( states:(
c)(((( Sundry( items( such( as( labels,( boxes,( prints,( packages,( wrappers,( receptacles,(
advertisements(and(other(paraphernalia(bearing(the(copyrights(and/or(trademarks(owned(
by(MICROSOFT(CORPORATION\(
! The(scope(of(this(description(is(allGembracing(since(it(covers(property(used(for(personal(or(
other(purposes(not(related(to(copyright(infringement(or(unfair(competition.(Moreover,(the(
description(covers(property(that(Maxicorp(may(have(bought(legitimately(from(Microsoft(or(
its(licensed(distributors.(((Paragraph((c)(simply(calls(for(the(seizure(of(all(items(bearing(
the(Microsoft(logo,(whether(legitimately(possessed(or(not.(Neither(does(it(limit(the(seizure(
to(products(used(in(copyright(infringement(or(unfair(competition.(
! All(articles(seized(under(paragraph((c)(of(the(search(warrants,(not(falling(under(paragraphs(
a,(b,(d,(e(or(f,(are(ordered(returned(to(Maxicorp,(Inc.(immediately.(
(
(
(
TRADEMARK(
(
(
UNNO'COMMERCIAL'ENTERPRISES,'INC.''vs.'GENERAL'MILLING'
CORPORATION(
! The(right(to(register(trademark(is(based(on(ownership.(When(the(applicant(is(not(the(owner(
of(the(trademark(being(applied(for,(he(has(no(right(to(apply(for(the(registration(of(the(same.(
Under(the(Trademark(Law(only(the(owner(of(the(trademark,(trade(name(or(service(mark(
used(to(distinguish(his(goods,(business(or(service(from(the(goods,(business(or(service(of(
others(is(entitled(to(register(the(same.(
! An(importer,(broker,(indentor(or(distributor(acquires(no(rights(to(the(trademark(of(the(goods(
he(is(dealing(with(in(the(absence(of(a(valid(transfer(or(assignment(of(the(trade(mark.(
! SCOPE:(The(term(owner(does(not(include(the(importer(of(the(goods(bearing(the(trademark,(
trade(name,(service(mark,(or(other(mark(of(ownership,(unless(such(importer(is(actually(
the(owner(thereof(in(the(country(from(which(the(goods(are(imported.(Thus,(this(Court(has(
on(several(occasions(ruled(that(where(the(applicant's(alleged(ownership(is(not(shown(in(
any(notarial(document(and(the(applicant(appears(to(be(merely(an(importer(or(distributor(
of(the(merchandise(covered(by(said(trademark,(its(application(cannot(be(granted.(
! DEED(OF(ASSIGNMENT\(PROOF(OF(OWNERSHIP:(The(Director(of(Patents(correctly(found(
that(ample(evidence(was(presented(that(Centennial(Mills,(Inc.(was(the(owner(and(prior(
user( in( the( Philippines( of( the( trademark( "All( Montana"( through( a( local( importer( and(
broker.(The(Deed(of(Assignment(itself(constitutes(sufficient(proof(of(its(ownership(of(the(
trademark("All(Montana,("showing(that(Centennial(Mills(was(a(corporation(duly(organized(
and(existing(under(and(by(virtue(of(the(laws(of(the(State(of(Oregon,(U.S.A.(with(principal(
place(and(business(at(Portland,(Oregon,(U.S.A.(and(the(absolute(and(registered(owner(
of(several(trademarks(for(wheat(fl(our,(i.e.((I(mperial,(White(Lily,(Duck,(General,(Swan,(
White(Horse,(Vinta,(El(Paro,(Baker's(J(oy,(Choice,(Red(Bowl,(All(Montana(and(Dollar)(all(
of(which(were(assigned(by(it(to(respondent(General(Milling(Corporation.(
! Ownership(of(a(trademark(is(not(acquired(by(the(mere(fact(of(registration(alone.(Registration(
merely( creates( a( prima( facie( presumption( of( the( validity( of( the( registration,( of( the(
registrant's( ownership( of( the( trademark( and( of( the( exclusive( right( to( the( use( thereof.(
 Registration(does(not(perfect(a(trademark(right.(As(conceded(itself(by(petitioner,(evidence(
may(be(presented(to(overcome(the(presumption.(Prior(use(by(one(will(controvert(a(claim(
of(legal(appropriation(by(subsequent(users.(
! Under(Rule(178(of(the(Rules(of(the(Patent(Office(in(Trademark(Cases,(the(Director(of(Patents(
is(expressly(authorized(to(order(the(cancellation(of(a(registered(mark(or(trade(name(or(
name( or( other( mark( of( ownership( in( an( inter( partes( case,( such( as( the( interference(
proceeding(at(bar.(
(
(
(
KABUSHI'KAISHA'ISETAN'ISETAN'CO.,'LTD.,'vs.'IAC,'ISETANN'DEPARTMENT'
STORE,'INC.(
! A(fundamental(principle(of(Philippine(Trademarks(Law(is(that(actual(use(in(commerce(in(the(
Philippines(is(a(prerequisite(to(the(acquisition(of(ownership(over(a(trademark(or(a(trade(
name.(
! A(prior(registrant(cannot(claim(exclusive(use(of(the(trademark(unless(it(uses(it(in(commerce.(
! The(records(show(that(the(petitioner(has(never(conducted(any(business(in(the(Philippines.(I(
t(has(never(promoted(its(tradename(or(trademark(in(the(Philippines.(It(has(absolutely(no(
business(goodwill(in(the(Philippines.(I(t(is(unknown(to(Filipinos(except(the(very(few(who(
may(have(noticed(it(while(travelling(abroad.(I(t(has(never(paid(a(single(centavo(of(tax(to(
the(Philippine(government.(Under(the(law,(it(has(no(right(to(the(remedy(it(seeks.(There(
can(be(no(question(from(the(records(that(the(petitioner(has(never(used(its(tradename(or(
trademark(in(the(Philippines.(The(mere(origination(or(adoption(of(a(particular(tradename(
without(actual(use(thereof(in(the(market(is(insufficient(to(give(any(exclusive(right(to(its(
use,( even( though( such( adoption( is( publicly( declared,( such( as( by( use( of( the( name( in(
advertisements,(circulars,(price(lists,(and(on(signs(and(stationery.(
! The(Paris(Convention(for(the(Protection(of(Industrial(Property(does(not(automatically(exclude(
all(countries(of(the(world(that(have(signed(it(from(using(a(trade(name(which(happens(to(
be(used(in(one(country.(
! Conditions(which(must(exist(before(any(trademark(owner(can(claim(and(be(afforded(rights:(
1. the(mark(must(be(internationally(known(or(well(known\(
2. the(subject(of(the(right(must(be(a(trademark,(not(a(patent(or(copyright(or(anything(else\(
3. the(mark(must(be(for(use(in(the(same(or(similar(kinds(of(goods,(and(
4. The(person(claiming(must(be(the(owner(of(the(mark.(
(
(
(
PHILIP'MORRIS,'INC.'v.'FORTUNE'TOBACCO'CORPORATION(
! RECIPROCITY:( While( petitioners( enjoy( the( statutory( presumptions( arising( from( such(
registration,(i.e.,(as(to(the(validity(of(the(registration,(ownership(and(the(exclusive(right(to(
use( the( registered( marks,( they( may( not( successfully( sue( on( the( basis( alone( of( their(
respective( certificates( of( registration( of( trademarks.( For,( petitioners( are( still( foreign(
corporations.(As(such,(they(ought,(as(a(condition(to(availment(of(the(rights(and(privileges(
visGàGvis( their( trademarks( in( this( country,( to( show( proof( that,( on( top( of( Philippine(
registration,( their( country( grants( substantially( similar( rights( and( privileges( to( Filipino(
citizens(pursuant(to(Section(21GA20(of(R.A.(No.(166.(
! ID:(The(aforementioned(reciprocity(requirement(is(a(condition(sine(qua(non(to(filing(a(suit(by(
a( foreign( corporation( which,( unless( alleged( in( the( complaint,( would( justify( dismissal(
thereof,(a(mere(allegation(that(the(suit(is(being(pursued(under(Section(21GA(of(R.A.(No.(
166(not(being(sufficient.(
! REGISTRATION( VERSUS( ACTUAL( USE:( True,( the( Philippines’( adherence( to( the( Paris(
Convention24( effectively( obligates( the( country( to( honor( and( enforce( its( provisions( as(
regards(the(protection(of(industrial(property(of(foreign(nationals(in(this(country.(However,(
any(protection(accorded(has(to(be(made(subject(to(the(limitations(of(Philippine(laws.(
! Considering(that(R.A.(No.(166,(as(amended,(specifically(Sections(228(and(2GA29(thereof,(
mandates(actual(use(of(the(marks(and/or(emblems(in(local(commerce(and(trade(before(
they(may(be(registered(and(ownership(thereof(acquired,(the(petitioners(cannot,(therefore,(
dispense(with(the(element(of(actual(use.(Their(being(nationals(of(memberGcountries(of(the(
Paris(Union(does(not(alter(the(legal(situation.(
! Withal,(the(fact(that(international(law(has(been(made(part(of(the(law(of(the(land(does(NOT(by(
any( means( imply( the( primacy( of( international( law( over( national( law( in( the( municipal(
sphere.(Under(the(DOCTRINE(OF(INCORPORATION(as(applied(in(most(countries,(rules(
of( International( Law( are( given( a( standing( EQUAL,( not( superior,( to( national( legislative(
enactments.(
! Such(a(foreign(corporation(may(have(the(personality(to(file(a(suit(for(infringement(but(it(may(
not(necessarily(be(entitled(to(protection(due(to(absence(of(actual(use(of(the(emblem(in(
the(local(market.(
! The( registration( of( trademark( cannot( be( deemed( conclusive( as( to( the( actual( use( of( such(
trademark(in(local(commerce.(As(it(were,(registration(does(not(confer(upon(the(registrant(
an(absolute(right(to(the(registered(mark.(The(certificate(of(registration(merely(constitutes(
prima(facie(evidence(that(the(registrant(is(the(owner(of(the(registered(mark.(Evidence(of(
nonGusage( of( the( mark( rebuts( the( presumption( of( trademark( ownership,( as( what(
happened(here(when(petitioners(no(less(admitted(not(doing(business(in(this(country.(
! ShangriGLa(International(Hotel(Management,(Ltd.(v.(Development(Group(of(Companies,(Inc.:(
trademark(is(a(creation(of(use(and,(therefore,(actual(use(is(a(preGrequisite(to(exclusive(
ownership\(registration(is(only(an(administrative(confirmation(of(the(existence(of(the(right(
of( ownership( of( the( mark,( but( does( not( perfect( such( right\( actual( use( thereof( is( the(
perfecting(ingredient.(
! With(the(foregoing(perspective,(it(may(be(stated(right(off(that(the(registration(of(a(trademark(
unaccompanied( by( actual( use( thereof( in( the( country( accords( the( registrant( only( the(
standing( to( sue( for( infringement( in( Philippine( courts.( Entitlement( to( protection( of( such(
trademark(in(the(country(is(entirely(a(different(matter.(
! For(lack(of(convincing(proof(on(the(part(of(the(petitioners(of(actual(use(of(their(registered(
trademarks(prior(to(respondent’s(use(of(its(mark(and(for(petitioners’(failure(to(demonstrate(
confusing(similarity(between(said(trademarks,(the(dismissal(of(their(basic(complaint(for(
infringement( and( the( concomitant( plea( for( damages( must( be( affirmed.( The( law,( the(
surrounding(circumstances(and(the(equities(of(the(situation(call(for(this(disposition.(
(
(
(
SHANGRIcLA'INTERNATIONAL'HOTEL'MANAGEMENT,'LTD'v.'DEVELOPERS'
GROUP'OF'COMPANIES,'INC.,(
! ShangriGla(Hotel(did(not(infringe(on(the(logo(of(DGCI.(The(applicable(law(at(the(time(is(RA(
166,(which(requires(that(there(must(be(at(least(2(months(actual(use(prior(to(registration.(
The(registration(by(DGCI(is(invalid(for(want(of(the(actual(use(requirement.(Based(on(the(
facts(&(testimonies(of(the(chairman(of(DGCI,(the(logo(was(designed(in(December(1982\(
yet,( the( application( was( filed( as( early( as( October( 1982.( There( could( be( no( actual( use(
considering(the(foregoing(facts\(thus,(invalidating(DGCI’s(registration.(
! Ownership(of(a(mark(or(trade(name(may(be(acquired(not(necessarily(by(registration(but(by(
adoption( and( use( in( trade( or( commerce.( As( between( actual( use( of( a( mark( without(
registration,(and(registration(of(the(mark(without(actual(use(thereof,(the(former(prevails(
over(the(latter.(For(a(rule(widely(accepted(and(firmly(entrenched,(because(it(has(come(
down(through(the(years,(is(that(actual(use(in(commerce(or(business(is(a(preGrequisite(to(
the(acquisition(of(the(right(of(ownership.(
! Even( if( registration( was( valid,( it( is( not( enough( to( confer( ownership( of( the( trademark.( As(
already(held,(registration(merely(creates(a(prima(facie(presumption( of(the(validity(of(the(
registration,( (of(the(registrant's(ownership(of(the(trademark(and of(the(exclusive(right(
to(the(use(thereof.(This(presumption(is(rebuttable(&(must(give(way(to(evidence(on(the(
contrary.(
! Under(RA(166,(any(person(may(appropriate(to(his(exclusive(use(a(trademark,(trade(name,(
or(a(service(mark(not(so(appropriated(by(another.(The(exclusion(did(not(require(that(the(
prior(appropriation(of(another(must(be(in(the(Philippines\(hence,(it(was(interpreted(to(cover(
also(appropriation(outside(the(country.(ShangriGla(Hotel(has(been(continuously(using(their(
mark(&(logo(since(1975,(while(DGCI(began(using(theirs(towards(the(end(of(1982.(
! While(the(petitioners(may(not(have(qualified(under(Section(2(of(R.A.(No.(166(as(a(registrant,(
neither(did(respondent(DGCI(,(since(the(latter(also(failed(to(fulfill(the(2month(actual(use(
requirement.(What(is(worse,(DGCI(was(not(even(the(owner(of(the(mark.(For(it(to(have(
been( the( owner,( the( mark( must( not( have( been( already( appropriated( (i.e.,( used)( by(
someone(else.(At(the(time(of(respondent(DGCI('s(registration(of(the(mark,(the(same(was(
already(being(used(by(the(petitioners,(albeit(abroad,(of(which(DGCI('s(president(was(fully(
aware.(
! A( person( or( entity( who( is( not( the( owner( of( a( trademark( could( not( bring( an( action( of(
infringement.(Decision(of(the(CA(was(set(aside,(complaint(of(DGCI(was(dismissed.(
! NEW(LAW:(The(new(Intellectual(Property(Code((IPC),(Republic(Act(No.(8293,(undoubtedly(
shows(the(firm(resolve(of(the(Philippines(to(observe(and(follow(the(Paris(Convention(by(
incorporating(the(relevant(portions(of(the(Convention(such(that(persons(who(may(question(
a( mark( (that( is,( oppose( registration,( petition( for( the( cancellation( thereof,( sue( for( unfair(
competition)( include( persons( whose( internationally( wellGknown( mark,(whether# or# not#
registered,(is(identical(with(or(confusingly(similar(to(or(constitutes(a(translation(of(a(mark(
that(is(sought(to(be(registered(or(is(actually(registered(
(
(
(
ANG'v.'TORIBIO(
! That(petitioner's(registration(of(the(tradeGmark("Ang(Tibay"(should(be(cancelled,(and(that(she(
should(be(perpetually(enjoined(from(using(said(tradeGmark(on(goods(manufactured(and(
sold(by(her.(
! The(term(“Ang(Tibay”,(not(being(a(geographic(or(descriptive(word,(is(capable(of(exclusive(
appropriation(as(trademark.(An(inquiry(into(the(etymology(and(meaning(of(the(Tagalog(
 words("Ang(Tibay,"(made(in(the(decision,(shows(that(the(phrase(is(never(used(adjectively(
to(define(or(describe(an(object.(I(t(is,(therefore,(not(a(descriptive(term(within(the(meaning(
of( the( TradeGmark( Law( but( rather( a( fanciful( or( coined( phrase( which( may( properly( and(
legally(be(appropriated(as(a(tradeGmark(or(tradeGname.(Hence,(it(was(originally(capable(
of(exclusive(appropriation(as(a(tradeGmark(by(the(respondent.(
! FUNCTIONS(OF(TRADEMARK\(DOCTRINE(OF(SECONDARY(MEANING:(The(function(of(
a(tradeGmark(is(to(point(distinctively,(either(by(its(own(meaning(or(by(association,(to(the(
origin( or( ownership( of( the( wares( to( which( it( is( applied.( "Ang( Tibay,"( as( used( by( the(
respondent(to(designate(his(wares,(had(exactly(performed(that(function(for(twentyGtwo(
years(before(the(petitioner(adopted(it(as(a(tradeGmark(in(her(own(business.("Ang(Tibay"(
shoes(and(slippers(are,(by(association,(known(throughout(the(Philippines(as(products(of(
the("Ang(Tibay"(factory(owned(and(operated(by(the(respondent.(Even#if#"Ang#Tibay,"#
therefore,# were# not# capable# of# exclusive# appropriation# as# a# tradeFmark,# the#
application# of# the# doctrine# of# secondary# meaning# could# nevertheless# be# fully#
sustained#because,#in#any#event,#by#respondent's#long#and#exclusive#use#of#said#
phrase# with# reference# to# his# products# and# his# business,# it# has# acquired# a#
proprietary#connotation.(This(doctrine(is(to(the(effect(that(a(word(or(phrase(originally(
incapable(of(exclusive(appropriation(with(reference(to(an(article(on(the(market,(because(
geographically(or(otherwise(descriptive,(might(nevertheless(have(been(used(so(long(and(
so(exclusively(by(one(producer(with(reference(to(his(article(that,(in(that(trade(and(to(that(
branch(of(the(purchasing(public,(the(word(or(phrase(has(come(to(mean(that(the(article(
was(his(product.(
! Although( two( noncompeting( articles( may( be( classified( under( two( different( classes( by( the(
Patent(Office(because(they(are(deemed(not(to(possess(the(same(descriptive(properties,(
they( would( nevertheless( be( held( by( the( courts( to( belong( to( the( same( class( if( the(
simultaneous(use(on(them(of(identical(or(closely(similar(tradeG(marks(would(be(likely(to(
cause(confusion(as(to(the(origin,(or(personal(source,(of(the(second(user's(goods.(They(
would(be(considered(as(not(falling(under(the(same(class(only(if(they(are(so(dissimilar(or(
so(foreign(to(each(other(as(to(make(it(unlikely(that(the(purchaser(would(think(the(first(user(
made(the(second(user's(goods.(Such(construction(of(the(law(is(induced(by(cogent(reasons(
of(equity(and(fair(dealing(discussed(in(the(decision.(
! The(courts(have(come(to(realize(that(there(can(be(unfair(competition(or(unfair(trading(even(if(
the(goods(are(non(competing,(and(that(such(unfair(trading(can(cause(injury(or(damage(to(
the( first( user( of( a( given( trademark.( First,( by( prevention( of( natural( expansion( of( the(
business( and( second,( by( having( his( business( reputation( confused( with( and( put( at( the(
mercy(of(the(2nd(user.(When(noncompetitive(products(are(sold(under(the(same(mark,(the(
gradual(whittling(away(or(dispersion(of(the(identity(and(hold(upon(the(public(mind(of(the(
mark( created( by( its( first( user,( inevitably( results.( The( original( owner( is( entitled( to( the(
preservation(of(the(valuable(link(between(him(and(the(public(that(has(been(created(by(his(
ingenuity(and(merit(of(his(wares(and(services.”(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Philip'Morris,'Inc.'v.'CA'(224'SCRA'624,'Dissenting''OpinionE'Justice'Feliciano(
! In(the(trial(court,(both(J(udge(Reyes(and(J(udge(Galing(took(the(position(that(until(the(Director(
of(Patents(shall(have(finally(acted(on(private(respondent's(application(for(registration(of(
"MARK,"(petitioners(cannot(be(granted(the(relief(of(preliminary(injunction.(I(t(is(respectfully(
submitted(that(this(position(is(both(erroneous(and(unfortunate.(
! The(pendency(of(the(application(before(the(Director(of(Patents(is(not(in(itself(a(reason(
for(denying(preliminary(injunction.(Our(courts(have(jurisdiction(and(authority(to(determine(
whether(or(not("MARK"(is(an(infringement(on(petitioners'(registered(trademarks.(Under(
our(case(law,(the(issuance(of(a(Certificate(of(Registration(of(a(trademark(in(the(Principal(
Register(by(the(Director(of(Patents(would(not(prevent(a(court(from(ruling(on(whether(or(
not( the( trademark( so( granted( registration( is( confusingly( similar( with( a( previously(
registered( trademark,( where( such( issue( is( essential( for( resolution( of( a( case( properly(
before(the(court.(
! "MARK"(has(taken(over(the(dominant(word(in("MARK(VI(I("(and("MARK(TEN."(These(
circumstances,(coupled(with(private(respondent's(failure(to(explain(how(or(why(it(chose,(
out(of(all(the(words(in(the(English(language,(the(word("mark"(to(refer(to(its(cigarettes,(lead(
me(to(the(submission(that(there(is(a(prima(facie(basis(for(holding,(as(the(Patent(Office(
has(held(and(as(the(Court(of(Appeals(did(hold(originally,(that(private(respondent's("MARK"(
infringes(upon(petitioners'(registered(trademarks.(
! There( is( thus( no( question( as( to( the( legal( rights( of( petitioners( as( holders( of( trademarks(
registered(in(the(Philippines.(Private(respondent,(however,(resists(and(assails(petitioners'(
effort(to(enforce(their(legal(rights(by(heavily(underscoring(the(fact(that(petitioners(are(not(
registered( to( do( business( in( the( Philippines( and( are( not( in( fact( doing( business( in( the(
Philippines.(
! Foreign(corporations(and(corporations(domiciled(in(a(foreign(country(are(not(disabled(
from( bringing( suit( in( Philippine( courts( to( protect( their( rights( as( holders( of( trademarks(
registered( in( the( Philippines( PROVIDED( that( the( country( of( which( the( said( foreign(
corporation(or(juristic(person(is(a(citizen(or(in(which(it(is(domiciled(by(treaty,(convention(
or(law,(grants(similar(privilege(to(corporate(or(juristic(persons(of(the(Philippines."(
! EFFECT:( A( corporate( national( of( a( member( country( of( the( Paris( Union( is( entitled( to(
bring( in( Philippine( courts( an( action( for( infringement( of( trademarks,( or( for( unfair(
competition,(without(necessity(for(obtaining(registration(or(a(license(to(do(business(in(the(
Philippines,(and(without(necessity(of(actually(doing(business(in(the(Philippines.(
! The(very(fact(that(the(appropriate(Philippine(Government(office(issued(the(Certificates(
of( Registration( necessarily( gave( rise( to( the( presumption( that( such( preGregistration( use(
had(in(fact(been(shown(to(the(satisfaction(of(the(Philippines(Patent(Office((now(the(Bureau(
of(Patents,(Trademarks(and(Technology(Transfer(["BPTTT"]).(I(t(is(important(to(note(that(
respondent(Fortune(has(not(purported(to(attack(the(validity(of(the(trademarks("Mark(Ten"(
and("Lark"(by(pretending(that(no(preGregistration(use(in(commerce(in(the(Philippines(had(
been(shown.(
! In( the( case( at( bar,( again,( respondent( Fortune( has( not( explicitly( pretended( that( the(
petitioners'(trademarks(have(been(abandoned(by(nonGuse(in(trade(and(commerce(in(the(
Philippines(although(it(appears(to(insinuate(such(nonGuse(and(abandonment(by(stressing(
that(petitioners(are(not(doing(business(in(the(Philippines.(
! The(circumstance(that(the(foreign(owner(of(a(Philippine(trademark(is(not(licensed(to(do(
business( and( is( not( doing( business( in( the( Philippines,( does( not( mean( that( petitioner's(
goods((that(is,(goods(bearing(petitioner's(trademark)(are(not(sold(in(the(Philippines.(For(
 cigarettes(bearing(petitioners'(trademarks(may(in(fact(be(imported(into(and(be(available(
for(sale(in(the(Philippines(through(the(acts(of(importers(or(distributors.(Petitioners(have(
stated(that(their("Mark(VI(I(,"("Mark(Ten"(and("Lark"(cigarettes(are(in(fact(brought(into(the(
country(and(available(for(sale(here(in,(e.g.,(dutyGfree(shops,(though(not(imported(into(or(
sold(in(the(Philippines(by(petitioners(themselves.(
! Here(again,(a(basic(argument(of(private(respondent(was(that(petitioners(had(not(shown(any(
damages(because(they(are(not(doing(business(in(the(Philippines.(
! That( petitioners( are( not( doing( business( and( are( not( licensed( to( do( business( in( the(
Philippines,(does(not(necessarily(mean(that(petitioners(are(not(in(a(position(to(sustain,(
and(do(not(in(fact(sustain,(damage(through(trademark(infringement(on(the(part(of(a(local(
enterprise.(Such(trademark(infringement(by(a(local(company(may,(for(one(thing,(affect(
the(volume(of(importation(into(the(Philippines(of(cigarettes(bearing(petitioners'(trademarks(
by(independent(or(third(party(traders.(
! That( a( registered( trademark( has( value( in( itself( apart( from( the( trade( physically(
accompanying(its(use,(has(been(recognized(by(our(Court.(I(n(Ang(v.(Teodoro.(
! STA(ANA(v.(MALIWAT:(Modern(law(recognizes(that(the(protection(to(which(the(owner(
of( a( trademark( is( entitled( is( not( limited( to( guarding( his( goods( or( business( from( actua(
market(competition(with(identical(or(similar(products(of(the(parties,(but(extends(to(all(cases(
in(which(the(use(by(a(junior(appropriator(of(a(trademark(or(tradeGname(is(likely(to(lead(to(
a( confusing(of(source,(as(where(prospective(purchasers( would( be(misled( into(thinking(
that( the( complaining( party( has( extended( his( business( into( the( field( or( is( in( any( way(
connected( with( the( activities( of( the( infringer\( or( when( it( forestalls( the( normal( potential(
expansion(of(his(business(
! I(next(turn(to(private(respondent's(claim(that(issuance(of(an(injunction(would(impose(heavy(
damage(upon(itself(and(upon(the(Government.(
! Petitioners(seek(only(the(reinstatement(of(the(original(injunction(issued(by(the(Court(of(
Appeals,(i.e.,(one(that(restrains(private(respondent(from(using(the(trademark("MARK"(on(
its( cigarettes.( There( is( nothing( to( prevent( private( respondent( from( continuing( to(
manufacture( and( sell( cigarettes( under( any( of( its( already( existing( and( registered(
trademarks,( of( which( it( has( several,( or( under( some( new( and( specially( created(
trademark(s).(Realistically,(private(respondent,(if(enjoined,(would(lose(only(the(value(of(
the( cigarettes( already( branded( with( "MARK,"( the( value( of( the( packaging( material(
imprinted(with(the(same(trademark((which(cigarettes(and(material(may(well(be(amenable(
to(reGcycling)(and(the(cost(of(past(advertisements(of("MARK"(in(media,(if(any.(
(
(
(
(
VICTORIAS'MILLING'CO'v.'ONG'SU(
! The(contention(of(petitioner(that(the(diamond(design(in(its(trademark(is(an(index(of(origin(has(
no(merit.(The(petitioner(has(not(shown(that(the(design(portion(of(the(mark(has(been(so(
used(that(purchasers(recognize(the(design,(standing(alone,(as(indicating(goods(coming(
from( the( registrant.( As( correctly( stated( by( the( Director( of( Patents,( common( geometric(
shapes( such( as( diamonds( ordinarily( are( not( regarded( as( indicia( of( origin( for( goods( to(
which( the( remarks( are( applied( unless( they( have( acquired( a( secondary( meaning.( And(
there( is( no( evidence( that( the( diamond( design( in( the( trademark( of( the( petitioner( has(
acquired(a(secondary(meaning(with(respect(to(its(sugar(business.(The(word("Victorias"(is(
 what(Identifies(the(sugar(contained(in(the(bag(as(the(product(of(the(petitioner.(Indeed,(the(
petitioner( has( advertised( its( sugar( in( bags( marked( "Victorias"( with( oval,( hexagor.( and(
other(designs.(
! It( seems( clear( that( the( words( "Valentine"( and( "Victorias"( and( the( names( and( places( of(
business(of(Victorias(Milling(Company,(Inc.(and(Ong(Su(are(the(dominant(features(of(the(
trademarks(in(question.(The(petitioner(has(not(established(such(a(substantial(similarity(
between(the(two(trademarks(in(question(as(to(warrant(the(cancellation(of(the(trademark(
'Valentine'of(the(respondent(Su.(
! The( Director( of( Patents( correctly( ruled( that( he( has( no( jurisdiction( over( the( issue( of( unfair(
competition.(
! It(seems(immaterial(whether(or(not(Ong(Su(has(judicial(authority(to(use(Mariano(Ang(as(an(
alias.(There(is(evidence(that(even(before(the(last(World(War,(the(trademark('Valentine'(
and(design(had(been(used(under(the(name(of(either(Ong(Su(or(Mariano(Ang.(
! ((
! The(words("Victorias"(and("Valentine"(are(not(similar(in(spelling(and(do(not(have(a(similar(
sound(when(pronounced.(Even(the(diamond(designs(are(different.(The(diamond(design(
of(the(trademark("Valentine"(has(protruding(fines(at(the(comers.(Even(an(illiterate(person(
can(see(the(difference(between(the(two(diamond(designs.(
(
(
(
CANON'KABUSHIKI'KAISHAvs.'CA'&'NSR'RUBBER'CORPORATION(
! We( reiterated( the( principle( that( the( certificate( of( registration( confers( upon( the( trademark(
owner( the( exclusive( right( to( use( its( own( symbol( only( to( those( goods( specified( in( the(
certificate,(subject(to(the(conditions(and(limitations(stated(therein.[11](Thus,(the(exclusive(
right( of( petitioner( in( this( case( to( use( the( trademark( CANON( is( limited( to( the( products(
covered(by(its(certificate(of(registration.(
! Ordinarily,(the(ownership(of(a(trademark(or(tradename(is(a(property(right(that(the(owner(is(
entitled(to(protect[4](as(mandated(by(the(Trademark(Law.[5](However,(when(a(trademark(
is(used(by(a(party(for(a(product(in(which(the(other(party(does(not(deal,(the(use(of(the(
same(trademark(on(the(latter’s(product(cannot(be(validly(objected(to.(
! In(Faberge,# Incorporated# vs.# Intermediate# Appellate# Court,[9]( the( Director( of( patents(
allowed(the(junior(user(to(use(the(trademark(of(the(senior(user(on(the(ground(that(the(
briefs(manufactured(by(the(junior(user,(the(product(for(which(the(trademark(BRUTE(was(
sought(to(be(registered,(was(unrelated(and(nonGcompeting(with(the(products(of(the(senior(
user(consisting(of(after(shave(lotion,(shaving(cream,(deodorant,(talcum(powder,(and(toilet(
soap.( The( senior( user( vehemently( objected( and( claimed( that( it( was( expanding( its(
trademark( to( briefs( and( argued( that( permitting( the( junior( user( to( register( the( same(
trademark( would( allow( the( latter( to( invade( the( senior( user’s( exclusive( domain.( In(
sustaining(the(Director(of(Patents,(this(Court(said(that(since("(the(senior(user)(has(not(
ventured( in( the( production( of( briefs,( an( item( which( is( not( listed( in( its( certificate( of(
registration,((the(senior(user),(cannot(and(should(not(be(allowed(to(feign(that((the(junior(
user)(had(invaded((the(senior(user’s)(exclusive(domain.(
! Goods( are( related( when( they( belong( to( the( same( class( or( have( the( same( descriptive(
properties\(when(they(possess(the(same(physical(attributes(or(essential(characteristics(
with(reference(to(their(form,(composition,(texture(or(quality.[19](They(may(also(be(related(
because(they(serve(the(same(purpose(or(are(sold(in(grocery(stores.(
! Undoubtedly,(the(paints,(chemical(products,(toner(and(dyestuff(of(petitioner(that(carry(the(
trademark(CANON(are(unrelated(to(sandals,(the(product(of(private(respondent.(We(agree(
with( the( BPTTT,( following( the( Esso( doctrine,( when( it( noted( that( the( two( classes( of(
products(in(this(case(flow(through(different(trade(channels.(The(products(of(petitioner(are(
sold( through( special( chemical( stores( or( distributors( while( the( products( of( private(
respondent(are(sold(in(grocery(stores,(sariGsari(stores(and(department(stores.[23](Thus,(
the(evident(disparity(of(the(products(of(the(parties(in(the(case(at(bar(renders(unfounded(
the(apprehension(of(petitioner(that(confusion(of(business(or(origin(might(occur(if(private(
respondent(is(allowed(to(use(the(mark(CANON.(
! Tradename(is(defined(by(the(same(law(as(including("individual(names(and(surnames,(firm(
names,(tradenames,(devices(or(words(used(by(manufacturers,(industrialists,(merchants,(
agriculturists,(and(others(to(identify(their(business,(vocations,(or(occupations\(the(names(
or( titles( lawfully( adopted( and( used( by( natural( or( juridical( persons,( unions,( and( any(
manufacturing,( industrial,( commercial,( agricultural( or( other( organizations( engaged( in(
trade(or(commerce."Simply'put,'a'trade'name'refers'to'the'business'and'its'goodwillE'
a'trademark'refers'to'the'goods(
! There(is(no(automatic(protection(afforded(an(entity(whose(tradename(is(alleged(to(have(been(
infringed(through(the(use(of(that(name(as(a(trademark(by(a(local(entity.(
! The(Paris(Convention(for(the(Protection(of(Industrial(Property(does(not(automatically(exclude(
all(countries(of(the(world(which(have(signed(it(from(using(a(tradename(which(happens(to(
be(used(in(one(country.(To(illustrate(–(if(a(taxicab(or(bus(company(in(a(town(in(the(United(
Kingdom( or( India( happens( to( use( the( tradename( "Rapid( Transportation",( it( does( not(
necessarily( follow( that( "Rapid"( can( no( longer( be( registered( in( Uganda,( Fiji,( or( the(
Philippines.(
! Guidelines(in(the(implementation(of(Article(6bis((sic)(of(the(Treaty(of(Paris:(
1. the(mark(must(be(internationally(known\(
2. the(subject(of(the(right(must(be(a(trademark,(not(a(patent(or(copyright(or(anything(else\(
3. mark(must(be(for(use(in(the(same(or(similar(kinds(of(goods\(and(
4. the(person(claiming(must(be(the(owner(of(the(mark(
! Petitioner( failed( to( comply( with( the( third( requirement( of( the( said( memorandum( that( is( the(
mark(must(be(for(use(in(the(same(or(similar(kinds(of(goods.(The(Petitioner(is(using(the(
mark("CANON"(for(products(belonging(to(class(2((paints,(chemical(products)(while(the(
Respondent(is(using(the(same(mark(for(sandals((class(25).(Hence,(Petitioner’s(contention(
that(its(mark(is(wellGknown(at(the(time(the(Respondent(filed(its(application(for(the(same(
mark(should(fail.("(
(
(
(
WESC,'WESTERN'ELECTRIC'COMPANY,'INC.,'vs.'REYES(
! The(plaintiff,(Western(Electric(Company,(Inc.,(has(been(in(existence(as(a(corporation(for(over(
fifty(years,(during(which(time(it(has(established(a(reputation(all(over(the(world(including(
the(Philippine(Islands,(for(the(kind(and(quality(of(its(manufactured(articles,(and(it(is(very(
apparent(that(the(whole(purpose(and(intent(of(Herman(and(his(associates(in(seeking(to(
incorporate(another(corporation(under(the(identical(name(of(Western(Electric(Company,(
Inc.,(and(for(the(same(identical(purpose(as(that(of(the(plaintiff,(is(to(trespass(upon(and(
profit( by( its( good( name( and( business( reputation.( The( very( fact( that( Herman( and( his(
 associates( have( sought( the( use( of( that( particular( name( for( that( identical( purpose( is(
conclusive(evidence(of(the(fraudulent(intent(with(which(it(is(done.(
! The(judgment(of(the(lower(court(is(affirmed,(with(costs.(So(ordered.(
(
(
(
(
STERLING'PRODUCTS'INTERNATIONAL,'INCORPORATED'v.'FARBENFABRIKEN'
BAYER(
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT'and'ALLIED'MANUFACTURING'AND(
TRADING'CO.,'INC.(
(
! Accordingly,(the(1927(registration(in(the(United(States(of(the(BAYER(trademark(would(not(of(
itself(afford(plaintiff(protection(for(the(use(by(defendants(in(the(Philippines(of(the(same(
trademark(for(the(same(or(different(products.(
! Defendant(cannot(delist(plaintiff’s(BAYER(trademark(for(medicine(claiming(right(thereto(for(
said(use.(While(it(is(conceded(that(FBA's(predecessors(first(introduced(medical(products(
with(the(BAYER(trademarks(in(the(Philippine(market,(it(is(equally(true(that,(after(World(
War(I(,(no(definite(evidence(there(is(that(defendants(or(their(predecessors(traded(in(the(
Philippines(in(medicines(with(the(BAYER(trademarks(thereafter.(FBA(did(not(seasonably(
voice(its(objections.(Lack(of(protest(thereto(connoted(acquiescence.(
! The(net(result(is(that,(as(the(trial(court(aptly(observed,(plaintiff(may(hold(on(to(its(BAYER(
trademarks(for(medicines.(And(defendants(may(continue(using(the(same(trademarks(for(
insecticides(and(other(chemicals,(not(medicines.(
(
(
(
ASIA'BREWERY'v.'CA(
! There(is(hardly(any(dispute(that(the(dominant(feature(of(SMC's(trademark(is(the(name(of(the(
product:(SAN(MIGUEL(PALE(PILSEN,(written(in(white(Gothic(letters(with(elaborate(serifs(
at(the(beginning(and(end(of(the(letters("S"(and("M"(on(an(amber(background(across(the(
upper(portion(of(the(rectangular(design.(
! On( the( other( hand,( the( dominant( feature( of( ABI's( trademark( is( the( name:( BEER( PALE(
PILSEN,(with(the(word("Beer"(written(in(large(amber(letters,(larger(than(any(of(the(letters(
found(in(the(SMC(label.(
! The( trial( court( perceptively( observed( that( the( word( "BEER"( does( not( appear( in( SMC's(
trademark,(just(as(the(words("SAN(MIGUEL"(do(not(appear(in(ABI's(trademark.(Hence,(
there(is(absolutely(no(similarity(in(the(dominant(features(of(both(trademarks.(
! Neither(in(sound,(spelling(or(appearance(can(BEER(PALE(PILSEN(be(said(to(be(confusingly(
similar(to(SAN(MIGUEL(PALE(PILSEN.(No(one(who(purchases(BEER(PALE(PILSEN(can(
possibly(be(deceived(that(it(is(SAN(MIGUEL(PALE(PILSEN.(No(evidence(whatsoever(was(
presented(by(SMC(proving(otherwise(
! GENERI(C(OR(DESCRI(PTI(VE(AND(PRI(MARI(LY(GEOGRAPHI(CALLY(DESCRI(PTI(VE(
WORDS( NONGREGI( STRABLE( AND( NOT( APPROPRI( ABLE\( REASON( THEREFOR\(
CASE(AT(BAR.GGG(
! The(fact(that(the(words(pale(pilsen(are(part(of(ABI's(trademark(does(not(constitute(an(
infringement( of( SMC's( trademark:( SAN( MIGUEL( PALE( PILSEN,( for( "pale( pilsen"( are(
generic(words(descriptive(of(the(color(("pale"),(of(a(type(of(beer(("pilsen"),(which(is(a(light(
 bohemian( beer( with( a( strong( hops( flavor( that( originated( in( the( City( of( Pilsen( in(
Czechoslovakia(and(became(famous(in(the(Middle(Ages(
! Pilsen"(is(a("primarily(geographically(descriptive(word,"((Sec.(4,(subpar.([e](Republic(
Act( No.( 166,( as( inserted( by( Sec.( 2( of( R.A.( No.( 638)( hence,( nonGregisterable( and( not(
appropriable(by(any(beer(manufacturer.(
! The(words("pale(pilsen"(may(not(be(appropriated(by(SMC(for(its(exclusive(use(even(if(
they(are(part(of(its(registered(trademark:(SAN(MIGUEL(PALE(PILSEN,(any(more(than(
such(descriptive(words(as("evaporated(milk,"("tomato(ketchup,"("cheddar(cheese,"("corn(
flakes"(and("cooking(oil"(may(be(appropriated(by(any(single(manufacturer(of(these(food(
products,( for( no( other( reason( than( that( he( was( the( first( to( use( them( in( his( registered(
trademark.(In(Masso(Hermanos,(S.A.(vs.(Director(of(Patents,(94(Phil.(136,(139((1953),(it(
was(held(that(a(dealer(in(shoes(cannot(register("Leather(Shoes"(as(his(trademark(because(
that(would(be(merely(descriptive(and(it(would(be(unjust(to(deprive(other(dealers(in(leather(
shoes(of(the(right(to(use(the(same(words(with(reference(to(their(merchandise.(No(one(
may(appropriate(generic(or(descriptive(words.(They(belong(to(the(public(domain.(
! ((
! PROTECTI(ON(AGAI(NST(I(MI(TATI(ON(PROPERLY(LI(MI(TED(TO(NONFUNCTI(ONAL(
FEATURES\(CASE(AT(BAR.(
! The(petitioner's(contention(that(bottle(size,(shape(and(color(may(not(be(the(exclusive(
property( of( any( one( beer( manufacturer( is( well( taken.( SMC's( being( the( first( to( use( the(
steinie( bottle( does( not( give( SMC( a( vested( right( to( use( it( to( the( exclusion( of( everyone(
else.(Being#of#functional#or#common#use,#and#not#the#exclusive#invention#of#any#
one,#it#is#available#to#all#who#might#need#to#use#it#within#the#industry.#Nobody(can(
acquire(any(exclusive(right(to(market(articles(supplying(simple(human(needs(in(containers(
or(wrappers(of(the(general(form,(size(and(character(commonly(and(immediately(used(in(
marketing(such(articles(
! ABI(does(not(use(SMC's(steinie(bottle.(Neither(did(ABI(copy(it.(ABI(makes(its(own(steinie(
bottle(which(has(a(fat(bulging(neck(to(differentiate(it(from(SMC's(bottle.(The(amber(color(
is(a(functional(feature(of(the(beer(bottle.(As(pointed(out(by(ABI,(all(bottled(beer(produced(
in(the(Philippines(is(contained(and(sold(in(amberGcolored(bottles(because(amber(is(the(
most( effective( color( in( preventing( transmission( of( light( and( provides( the( maximum(
protection(to(beer.(
! That(the(ABI(bottle(has(a(320(ml.(capacity(is(not(due(to(a(desire(to(imitate(SMC's(bottle(
because( that( bottle( capacity( is( the( standard( prescribed( under( Metrication( Circular( No.(
778,(dated(4(December(1979,(of(the(Department(of(Trade,(Metric(System(Board.(
! With(regard(to(the(white(label(of(both(beer(bottles,(ABI(explained(that(it(used(the(color(
white( for( its( label( because( white( presents( the( strongest( contrast( to( the( amber( color( of(
ABI's(bottle\(it(is(also(the(most(economical(to(use(on(labels,(and(the(easiest(to("bake"(in(
the(furnace((p.(16,(TSN(of(September(20,(1988).(No(one(can(have(a(monopoly(of(the(
color(amber(for(bottles,(nor(of(white(for(labels,(nor(of(the(rectangular(shape(which(is(the(
usual(configuration(of(labels.(Needless(to(say,(the(shape(of(the(bottle(and(of(the(label(is(
unimportant.(What(is(all(important(is(the(name(of(the(product(written(on(the(label(of(the(
bottle(for(that(is(how(one(beer(may(be(distinguished(form(the(others.(
! TRADEMARK(ALLEGEDLY(I(NFRI(NGED(CONSI(DERED(AS(A(WHOLE(ANDNOT(AS(DI(
SSECTED\(DOCTRI(NE(ENUNCI(ATED(I(N(DEL(MONTE(CORPORATI(ON(vs.(COURT(
 OF(APPEALS(AND(SUNSHI(NE(SAUCE(MANUFACTURI(NG(I(NDUSTRI(ES,(181(SCRA(
410,(419,(NOT(APPLI(CABLE(TO(CASE(AT(BAR.(
! Del( Monte( Corporation( vs.( Court( of( Appeals( and( Sunshine( Sauce( Manufacturing(
Industries,"( 181( SCRA( 410,( 419,( 3( that:(( to( determine( whether( a( trademark( has( been(
infringed,(we(must(consider(the(mark(as(a(whole(and(not(as(dissected.(If(the(buyer(is(
deceived,(it(is(attributable(to(the(marks(as(a(totality,(not(usually(to(any(part(of(it.(
! That(ruling(may(not(apply(to(all(kinds(of(products.(Our(ruling(in(Del(Monte(would(not(
apply(to(beer(which(is(not(usually(picked(from(a(store(shelf(but(ordered(by(brand(by(the(
beer(drinker(himself(from(the(storekeeper(or(waiter(in(a(pub(or(restaurant.(
! Moreover,(SMC's(brand(or(trademark:("SAN(MIGUEL(PALE(PILSEN"(is(not(infringed(by(ABI's(
mark:( "BEER( NA( BEER"( or( "BEER( PALE( PILSEN."( ABI( makes( its( own( bottle( with( a(
bulging(neck(to(differentiate(it(from(SMC's(bottle,(and(prints(ABI's(name(in(three((3)(places(
on(said(bottle((front,(back(and(bottle(cap)(to(prove(that(it(has(no(intention(to(pass(of(its(
"BEER"(as("SAN(MIGUEL."(
! There(is(no(confusing(similarity(between(the(competing(beers(for(the(name(of(one(is("SAN(
MIGUEL"(while(the(competitor(is(plain("BEER"(and(the(points(of(dissimilarity(between(the(
two(outnumber(their(points(of(similarity.(
! Petitioner(ABI(has(neither(infringed(SMC's(trademark(nor(committed(unfair(competition(with(
the( latter's( SAN( MIGUEL( PALE( PILSEN( product.( While( its( BEER( PALE( PILSEN(
admittedly(competes(with(the(latter(in(the(open(market,(that(competition(is(neither(unfair(
nor(fraudulent.(Hence,(we(must(deny(SMC's(prayer(to(suppress(it.(
(
DISSENTING:(JUSTICE(CRUZ(
! A(number(of(courts(have(held(that(to(determine(whether(a(trademark(has(been(infringed,(we(
must(consider(the(mark(as(a(whole(and(not(as(dissected.(If(the(buyer(is(deceived,(it(is(
attributable( to( the( marks( as( a( totality,( not( usually( to( any( part( of( it.( The( court( therefore(
should(be(guided(by(its(first(impression,(for(a(buyer(acts(quickly(and(is(governed(by(a(
casual(glance,(the(value(of(which(may(be(dissipated(as(soon(as(the(court(assumes(to(
analyze(carefully(the(respective(features(of(the(mark.(
(
(
(
(
PAGcASA'INDUSTRIAL'COPORATION'v.'COURT'OF'APPEALS(
! An(unreasonable(length(of(time(had(already(passed(before(respondent(asserted(its(right(to(
the(trademark.(There(is(a(presumption(of(neglect(already(amounting(to("abandonment"(
of(a(right(after(a(party(had(remained(silent(for(quite(a(long(time(during(which(petitioner(
had(been(openly(using(the(trademark(in(question.(Such(inaction(on(the(part(of(respondent(
entitles(petitioner(to(the(equitable(principle(of(laches.(
! Respondent(wanted(goodwill(and(a(wide(market(established(at(the(expense(of(the(petitioner(
but(for(its(benefit.(It(is(precisely(the(intention(of(the(law,(including(a(provision(on(equitable(
principle(to(protect(only(the(vigilant,(not(those(guilty(of(laches.(
STA.'ANA'v.'MALIWAT(
! In(the(case(at(bar,(the(proof(of(date(of(first(use((1953),(earlier(than(that(alleged(in(respondent(
Maliwat's(application((1962),(can(be(no(less(than(clear(and(convincing(because(the(fact(
was(stipulated(and(no(proof(was(needed.((JUDICIAL(ADMISSION)(
! EXTENT( OF( THE( PROTECTI( ON( TO( THE( TRADEMARK( OWNER.( —( Modern( law(
recognizes(that(the(protection(to(which(the(owner(of(a(trademark(is(entitled(is(not(limited(
to(guarding(his(goods(or(business(from(actual(market(competition(with(identical(or(similar(
products(of(the(parties,(but(extends(to(all(cases(in(which(the(use(by(a(junior(appropriator(
of( a( tradeGmark( or( tradeGname( is( likely( to( lead( to( a( confusion( of( source,( as( where(
prospective( purchasers( would( be( misled( into( thinking( that( the( complaining( party( has(
extended(his(business(into(the(field(or(is(in(any(way(connected(with(the(activities(of(the(
infringer(or(when(it(forestalls(the(normal(potential(expansion(of(his(business.(
! POSSESSI(ON(OF(THE(SAME(DESCRI(PTI(VE(PROPERTI(ES(NOT(REQUI(RED\(CASE(
AT(BAR.(—(Sec.(4,(Rep.(Act(No.(166(does(not(require(that(the(articles(of(manufacture(of(
the( previous( user( and( the( late( user( of( the( mark( should( possess( the( same( descriptive(
properties(or(should(fall(into(the(same(categories(as(to(bar(the(latter(from(registering(his(
mark(in(the(principal(register.(
! Therefore,(whether(or(not(shirts(and(shoes(have(the(same(descriptive(properties(or(whether(
or(not(it(is(the(prevailing(practice(or(the(tendency(of(tailors(and(haberdashers(to(expand(
their( business( into( shoeGmaking( are( not( controlling.( The( meat( of( the( matter( is( the(
likelihood(of(confusion,(mistake(or(deception(upon(purchaser(of(the(goods(of(the(junior(
user( of( the( mark( and( the( goods( manufactured( by( the( previous( user.( Here,( the(
resemblance( or( similarity( of( the( mark( "FLORMANN( and( the( name( FLORMEN( and( the(
likelihood( of( confusion,( one( to( the( other,( is( admitted\( therefore,( the( prior( adopter,(
respondent(Maliwat,(has(the(better(right(to(the(use(of(the(mark.(
(
(
(
Phil.'Refining'Co.'vs.'Ng'Sam[G.R.No.'Lc26676.July'30,'1982](
! A(rudimentary(precept(in(trademark(protection(is(that("the(right(to(a(trademark(is(a(limited(
one,(in(the(sense(that(others(may(used(the(same(mark(on(unrelated(goods.(
! A(trademark(is(designed(to(Identify(the(user.(But(it(should(be(so(distinctive(and(sufficiently(
original(as(to(enable(those(who(come(into(contact(with(it(to(recognize(instantly(the(Identity(
of( the( user.( "( It( must( be( affirmative( and( definite,( significant( and( distinctive,( capable( to(
indicate(origin(
! APPROPRI(ATI(ON(OR(I(MI(TATI(ON(OF(TRADEMARK("CAMIA”(CANNOT(I(NJ(URE(PETI(
TI(ONER(I(N(CASE(AT(BAR(FOR(BEI(NG(A(GENERIC(ANDCOMMON(TERM.(Being(a(
generic(and(common(term,(its(appropriation(as(a(trademark,(albeit(in(a(fanciful(manner(in(
that(it(bears(no(relation(to(the(product(it(Identifies,(is(valid.(
! It(has(been(held(that(if(a(mark(is(so(commonplace(that(it(cannot(be(readily(distinguished(from(
others,(then(it(is(apparent(that(it(cannot(Identify(a(particular(business\(and(he(who(first(
adopted(it(cannot(be(injured(by(any(subsequent(appropriation(or(imitation(by(others,(and(
the(public(will(not(be(deceived.(
! WHERE(BUSI(NESSES(OF(PARTI(ES(I(N(CASE(AT(BAR(ARE(NONCOMPETITI(VE(AND(
THEIR( PRODUCTS( UNRELATED,( THE( USE( OF( I( DENTI( CAL( TRADEMARKS( ON(
PRODUCTS( UNDER( THE( SAME( CLASSI( FI( CATI( ON( CANNOT( CONFUSE(
CONSUMERS(AS(TO(THEI(R(SOURCE.(
(
(
(
MIGHTY'CORPORATION'v.'E.J.'GALLO'WINERY(
! DISTINCTIONS(BETWEEN(TRADEMARK(INFRINGEMENT(AND(UNFAIR(COMPETITION:(
The(l(aw(on(unfair(competition(is(broader(and(more(inclusive(than(the(law(on(trademark(
infringement.(The(latter(is(more(limited(but(it(recognizes(a(more(exclusive(right(derived(
from(the(trademark(adoption(and(registration(by(the(person(whose(goods(or(business(is(
first(associated(with(it.(The(law(on(trademarks(is(thus(a(specialized(subject(distinct(from(
the(law(on(unfair(competition.(Hence,(even(if(one(fails(to(establish(his(exclusive(property(
right(to(a(trademark,(he(may(still(obtain(relief(on(the(ground(of(his(competitor's(unfairness(
or(fraud.(
! In(Del(Monte(Corporation(vs.(Court(of(Appeals,[45](we(distinguished(trademark(infringement(
from(unfair(competition:(
1. Infringement( of( trademark( is( the( unauthorized( use( of( a( trademark,( whereas( unfair(
competition(is(the(passing(off(of(one's(goods(as(those(of(another.(
2. In( infringement( of( trademark( fraudulent( intent( is( unnecessary,( whereas( in( unfair(
competition(fraudulent(intent(is(essential.(
3. In(infringement(of(trademark(the(prior(registration(of(the(trademark(is(a(prerequisite(to(the(
action,(whereas(in(unfair(competition(registration(is(not(necessary.(
! Thus,(under(Article(6bis(of(the(Paris(Convention,(the(following(are(the(elements(of(trademark(
infringement:(
(a)((registration(or(use(by(another(person(of(a(trademark(which(is(a(reproduction,(imitation(
or(translation(liable,to,create,confusion(
(b)((((of(a(mark(considered(by(the(competent(authority(of(the(country(of(registration(or(use(
to(be(well<known(in(that(country(and(is(already(the(mark(of(a(person(entitled(to(the(benefits(
of(the(Paris(Convention,(and(
(c)such(trademark(is(used,for,identical,or,similar,goods.(
! In(summary,(the(Paris(Convention(protects(wellGknown(trademarks(only((to(be(determined(
by(domestic(authorities),(while(the(Trademark(Law(protects(all(trademarks,(whether(wellG
known(or(not,(provided(that(they(have(been(registered(and(are(in(actual(commercial(use(
in(the(Philippines.\(
! Under( both( the( Paris( Convention( and( the( Trademark( Law,( the( protection( of( a( registered(
trademark(is(limited(only(to(goods(identical(or(similar(to(those(in(respect(of(which(such(
trademark(is(registered(and(only(when(there(is(likelihood(of(confusion.(Under(both(laws,(
the( time( element( in( commencing( infringement( cases( is( material( in( ascertaining( the(
registrant’s(express(or(implied(consent(to(another’s(use(of(its(trademark(or(a(colorable(
imitation( thereof.(( This( is( why( acquiescence,( estoppel( or( laches( may( defeat( the(
registrant’s(otherwise(valid(cause(of(action.(
! NO( LIKELIHOOD( OF( CONFUSION,( MISTAKE( OR( DECEIT( AS( TO( THE( IDENTITY( OR(
SOURCE(OF(PETITIONERS’(AND(RESPONDENTS’(GOODS(OR(BUSINESS.(
! There(are(two(types(of(confusion(in(trademark(infringement.((The(first(is(“confusion(of(goods”(
when(an(otherwise(prudent(purchaser(is(induced(to(purchase(one(product(in(the(belief(
that(he(is(purchasing(another,(in(which(case(defendant’s(goods(are(then(bought(as(the(
plaintiff’s( and( its( poor( quality( reflects( badly( on( the( plaintiff’s( reputation.(( The( other( is(
“confusion(of(business”(wherein(the(goods(of(the(parties(are(different(but(the(defendant’s(
product(can(reasonably((though(mistakenly)(be(assumed(to(originate(from(the(plaintiff,(
thus(deceiving(the(public(into(believing(that(there(is(some(connection(between(the(plaintiff(
and(defendant(which,(in(fact,(does(not(exist(
! In( determining( the( likelihood( of( confusion,( the( Court( must( consider:( [a]( the( resemblance(
between( the( trademarks\( [b]( the( similarity( of( the( goods( to( which( the( trademarks( are(
attached\([c](the(likely(effect(on(the(purchaser(and([d](the(registrant’s(express(or(implied(
consent(and(other(fair(and(equitable(considerations.(
! The( many( different( features( like( color( schemes,( art( works( and( other( markings( of( both(
products(drown(out(the(similarity(between(them(–(the(use(of(the(word(“GALLO”(―(a(family(
surname( for( the( Gallo( Winery’s( wines( and( a( Spanish( word( for( rooster( for( petitioners’(
cigarettes.(
! WINES(AND(CIGARETTES(ARE(NOT(IDENTICAL,(SIMILAR,(COMPETING(OR(RELATED(
GOODS(
! RELATED(GOODS:(Simply(stated,(when(goods(are(so(related(that(the(public(may(be,(or(is(
actually,( deceived( and( misled( that( they( come( from( the( same( maker( or( manufacturer,(
trademark(infringement(occurs(
! In(this(regard,(we(adopted(the(Director(of(Patents’(finding(in(Philippine(Refining(Co.,(Inc.(vs.(
Ng(Sam(and(the(Director(of(Patents:(
! GALLO( cigarettes( are( inexpensive( items( while( GALLO( wines( are( not.( GALLO( wines( are(
patronized( by( middleGtoGhighGincome( earners( while( GALLO( cigarettes( appeal( only( to(
simple(folks(like(farmers,(fishermen,(laborers(and(other(lowGincome(workers.(
! GALLO( cigarettes( and( GALLO( wines( are( not( sold( through( the( same( channels( of(
trade.((GALLO(cigarettes(are(PhilippineGmade(and(petitioners(neither(claim(nor(pass(off(
their( goods( as( imported( or( emanating( from( Gallo( Winery.( GALLO( cigarettes( are(
distributed,(marketed(and(sold(through(ambulant(and(sidewalk(vendors,(small(local(sariG
sari( stores( and( grocery( stores( in( Philippine( rural( areas,( mainly( in( Misamis( Oriental,(
Pangasinan,( Bohol,( and( Cebu.[118]( On( the( other( hand,( GALLO( wines( are( imported,(
distributed(and(sold(in(the(Philippines(through(Gallo(Winery’s(exclusive(contracts(with(a(
domestic(entity,(which(is(currently(Andresons.(By(respondents’(own(testimonial(evidence,(
GALLO(wines(are(sold(in(hotels,(expensive(bars(and(restaurants,(and(highGend(grocery(
stores(and(supermarkets,(not(through(sariGsari(stores(or(ambulant(vendors.(
! THE(GALLO(WINE(TRADEMARK(IS(NOT(A(WELLGKNOWN(MARK(IN(THE(CONTEXT(OF(
THE(PARIS(CONVENTION(IN(THIS(CASE(SINCE(WINES(AND(CIGARETTES(ARE(NOT(
IDENTICAL(OR(SIMILAR(GOODS(
! “Regarding(the(applicability(of(Article(8(of(the(Paris(Convention,(this(Office(believes(that(there(
is(no(automatic(protection(afforded(an(entity(whose(tradename(is(alleged(to(have(been(
infringed(through(the(use(of(that(name(as(a(trademark(by(a(local(entity.(
(
(
PUMA'v.'IAC(
! A(FOREIGN(CORPORATI(ON(NOT(DOING(BUSI(NESS(IN(THE(PHI(LI(PPINE(CAN(SUE(
IN(PHI(LI(PPINE(COURT(FOR(INFRI(NGEMENTGGGG(
! I(n(the(leading(case(of(La(Chemise(Lacoste,(S.A.(v.(Fernandez,((129(SCRA(373),(we(
ruled:( "But( even( assuming( the( truth( of( the( private( respondent's( allegation( that( the(
petitioner( failed( to( allege( material( facts( in( its( petition( relative( to( capacity( to( sue,( the(
petitioner(may(still(maintain(the(present(suit(against(respondent(Hemandas.(As(early(as(
1927,( this( Court( was,( and( it( still( is,( of( the( view( that( a( foreign( corporation( not( doing(
business( in( the( Philippines( needs( no( license( to( sue( before( Philippine( courts( for(
infringement(of(trademark(and(unfair(competition."(
 ! I(n(the(case(of(Converse(Rubber(Corporation(v.(Universal(Rubber(Products,(I(nc.((147(
SCRA(165),(we(likewise(reGaffirmed(our(adherence(to(the(Paris(Convention:("The(ruling(
in(the(aforecited(case(is(in(consonance(with(the(Convention(of(the(Union(of(Paris(for(the(
Protection(of(I(ndustrial(Property(to(which(the(Philippines(became(a(party(on(September(
27,( 1965.( Article( 8( thereof( provides( that( 'a( trade( name( [corporation( name]( shall( be(
protected(in(all(the(countries(of(the(Union(without(the(obligation(of(filing(or(registration,(
whether(or(not(it(forms(part(of(the(trademark.'(
! LIS(PENDENS\(PRI(NCI(PLE(NOT(APPLICABLE(TO(ADMI(NI(STRATI(VE(CASES.(
! As(regards(the(propriety(of(the(issuance(of(the(writ(of(preliminary(injunction,(the(records(show(
that(herein(private(respondent(was(given(the(opportunity(to(present(its(counterGevidence(
against(the(issuance(thereof(but(it(intentionally(refused(to(do(so(to(be(consistent(with(its(
theory(that(the(civil(case(should(be(dismissed(in(the(first(place.(Considering(the(fact(that(
"PUMA"(is(an(internationally(known(brand(name,(it(is(pertinent(to(reiterate(the(directive(to(
lower(courts,(which(equally(applies(to(administrative(agencies.(Judges(all(over(the(country(
are(well(advised(to(remember(that(court(processes(should(not(be(used(as(instruments(to,(
unwittingly(or(otherwise,(aid(counterfeiters(and(intellectual(pirates,(tie(the(hands(of(the(
law( as( it( seeks( to( protect( the( Filipino( consuming( public( and( frustrate( executive( and(
administrative( implementation( of( solemn( commitments( pursuant( to( international(
conventions(and(treaties."(
LA'CHEMISE'LACOSTE'v.'HERNANDEZ'(Art.'152.'2)(
! Whether(the(proceedings(before(the(patent(office(is(a(prejudicial(question(that(need(to(be(
resolved((before(the(criminal(action(for(unfair(competition(may(be(pursued.(
! No.(( The( proceedings( pending( before( the( Patent( Office( do( not( partake( of( the( nature( of( a(
prejudicial((question((which(must(first(be(definitely(resolved.((The(case(which(suspends(
the( criminal( action( must( be( a( civil( case,( not( a( mere( administrative( case,( which( is(
determinative(of(the(innocence(or(guilt(of(the(accused.(((The#issue#whether#a#trademark#
used#is#different#from#another’s#trademark#is#a#matter#of#defense#and#will#be#better#
resolved#in#the#criminal#proceedings#before#a#court#of#justice#instead#of#raising#it#
as#a#preliminary#matter#in#an#administrative#proceeding.(
! Inasmuch(as((the(goodwill((and(reputation(of(La(Chemise(Lacoste(products((date((back(even(
before(( 1964,( Hemandas(( cannot(( be( (allowed( to( continue(( the(( trademark(
“Lacoste”((for((the((reason(that((he((was((the((first(registrant(in(the(Supplemental(Register(
of( a( trademark( used( in( international( commerce.(( Registration( in( the( Supplemental(
Register(cannot(be(given(a(posture(as(if(the(registration(is(in(the(Principal(Register.((It(
must( be( noted( that( one( may( be( declared( an( unfair( competitor( even( if(( his( competing(
trademark(is(registered.(((La(Chemise(Lacoste(is(world(renowned(mark,(and(by(virtue(of(
the(20(November(1980(Memorandum(of(the(Minister(of(Trade(to(the(director(of(patents(in(
compliance(with(the(Paris(Convention(for(the(protection(of(industrial(property,(effectively(
cancels( the( registration( of( contrary( claimants( to( the( enumerated( marks,( which( include(
“Lacoste.”(
!