DOCSLIB.ORG

Mercantile Law – Intellectual Property Law Case Digest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Mercantile Law – Intellectual Property Law Case Digest DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW LIST OF CASES Intellectual Property Law I. Intellectual Property Code A. Intellectual Property Rights in General 1. Differences between Copyrights, Trademarks and Patent Pearl & Dean (Philippines), Inc. vs. Shoemart, Inc., G.R. No. 148222, August 15, 2003 B. Patents 1. Patentable Inventions Jessie Ching vs. William Salinas, et. al., G.R. No. 161295, June 29, 2005 2. Ownership of a Patent 1. Right to a Patent Pearl & Dean (Philippines), Inc. vs. Shoemart, Inc., G.R. No. 148222, ibid E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND CO. v. DIRECTOR EMMA C. FRANCISCO, GR. No. 174379, August 31, 2016 3. Rights Conferred by a Patent Domiciano Aguas vs. Conrado De Leon, G.R. No. L-32160, January 30, 1982 Manzano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113388, September 5, 1997 Precision Systems, Inc.,vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118708, February 2, 1998 Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 152 (1996) Smith Kline Beckman Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126627, August 14, 2003 Philippine Pharmawealth, Inc.,vs. Pfizer, Inc., G.R. No. 167715, November 17, 2010 4. Patent Infringement a. Tests in Patent Infringement i. Literal Infringement Pascual Godines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97343, September 13, 1993 ii. Doctrine of Equivalents 1 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW Pascual Godines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97343, ibid Smith Kline Beckman Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126627, ibid 2. Defenses in Action for Infringement Rosario Maguan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. L-45101, November 28, 1986 5. Licensing Prince vs. United Laboratories, Inc.,166 SCRA 133 (1988) C. Trademarks Pribhdas J. Mirpuri vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114508, November 19, 1999 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, G .R. No. 204605, July 19, 2016 1. Acquisition of Ownership of Mark Elidad C. Kho, doing business under the name and style of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 115758, March 19, 2002 Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc., 540 SCRA 215 (2007). E.Y. Industrial Sales vs. Shien Dar Electricity and Machinery Co. , G.R. No. 184850, 20 October 2010 Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Kunnan Enterprises Ltd. and Sports Concept & Distributor, Inc., G.R. No. 169974, April 20, 2010 Birkenstock Orthopaedie Gmbh and Co. Kg vs. Philippine Shoe Expo Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 194307, November 20, 2013 Taiwan Kolin Corporation, LTD. vs. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc.,G.R. No. 209843, March 25, 2015 Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation v. H.D. Lee Company, Inc., G.R. No. 210693, June 7, 2017 2. Non-Registrable Marks Lyceum of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 610 (1993) Societe Des Produits, Nestle, S.A. v. Puregold Price Club, Inc., G.R. No. 217194, September 6, 2017 Kensonic, Inc. v. Uni-Line Multi-Resources, Inc., (Phil.), G.R. Nos. 211820-21 & 211834-35, [June 6, 2018] 3. Prior Use of Mark as a Requirement Mattel, Inc. vs. Emma Francisco, et al., 560 SCRA 504 (2008) 4. Tests to Determine Confusing Similarity between Marks a. Dominancy Test 2 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Cluett Peabody Co., Inc., G.R. No. 139300, March 14, 2001 Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. vs. Court of Appeals and CFC Corporation, G.R. No. 112012, April 4, 2001 McDonald’s Corporation vs. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., G.R. No. 143993, August 18, 2004 McDonald’s Corporation vs. Macjoy Fastfood Corporation, G.R. No. 166115, February 2, 2007 Prosource International, Inc. vs. Horphag Research Management SA, G.R. No. 180073, November 25, 2009 Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. vs. Norvy Abyadang, G.R. No. 183404, October 13, 2010 Dermaline, Inc. vs. Myra Phamaceuticals, Inc., G.R. No. 190065, August 1, 2010 Soceite Des Produits Nestle, S.A. vs. Dy, Jr., G.R. No. 172276, August 8, 2010 Sketchers USA vs. Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corporation, GR No. 164321, March 28, 2011 Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. v. IFP Manufacturing Corporation, G.R. No. 221717, June 19, 2017 Citigroup, Inc. v. Citystate Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 205409, [June 13, 2018] b. Holistic Test Fruit of the Loom, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-32747, November 29, 1984 Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100098, December 29, 1995 Philip Morris, Inc. vs. Fortune Tobacco Corporation, G.R. No. 158589, June 27, 2006 Victorio Diaz vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180677, February 18, 2013 Seri Somboonsakdikul v. Orlane S.A., G.R. No. 188996, February 1, 2017 UFC PHILIPPINES, INC. v. FIESTA BARRIO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, G.R. No. 198889, January 20, 2016 c. Doctrine of unrelated goods Hickok Manufacturing, Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-44707, August 31, 1982 Faberge, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 71189, November 4, 1992 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120900, July 20, 2004 Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco, Inc. vs. E. & J. Gallo Winery and the Andresons Group, Inc., G.R. No. 154342, July 14, 2004 5. Well-Known Marks Pribhdas J. Mirpuri vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114508, ibid Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco, Inc. vs. E. & J. Gallo Winery and the Andresons Group, Inc., G.R. No. 154342, July 14, 2004 3 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW Sehwani, Inc. vs. In-N-Out Burger, Inc., G.R. No. 171053, October 15, 2007 Fredco Manufacturing Corporation vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College, GR No. 185917, June 1, 2011 6. Rights Conferred by Registration Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. vs. Norvy Abyadang, G.R. No. 183404, ibid 7. Infringement and Remedies Conrad and Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 691 (1995) Shangri-la International Hotel Management Ltd., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, 359 SCRA 273 (2001) Melbarose R. Sasot and Allandale R. Sasot vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 143193, June 29, 2005 Levi Strauss & Co., Levi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. vs. Clinton Apparelle, Inc., G.R. No. 138900, September 20, 2005 Tanduay Distillers, Inc.,vs. Ginebra San Miguel, Inc., G.R. No. 164324, August 14, 2009 W Land Holdings, Inc. v. Starwood Hotels And Resorts Worldwide, Inc., G.R. No. 222366, December 4, 2017 CATERPILLAR, INC., Petitioner, v. MANOLO P. SAMSON, G.R. No. 205972 and G.R. No. 164352, November 9, 2016 a. Trademark Infringement Del Monte Corporation and Philippine Packing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-78325, January 25, 1990 Asia Brewery, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals and San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 103543, July 5, 1993 Pearl & Dean (Philippines) Inc. vs. Shoemart, Inc., G.R. No. 148222, ibid William C. Yao, Sr., et. al. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R No. 168306, June 19, 2007 Ong vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 169440, November 23, 2011 Republic Gas Corporation (REGASCO), et. al. vs. Petron Corporation, et. al., G.R. No. 194062, June 17, 2013 Century Chinese Medicine Co., et. al. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188526, November 11, 2013 ABS-CBN Publishing, Inc. v. Director of the Bureau of Trademarks, G.R. No. 217916, [June 20, 2018] Citigroup, Inc. v. Citystate Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 205409, June 13, 2018, Leonen, J. L.C. BIG MAK BURGER, INC., v. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, G.R. No. 233073, FIRST DIVISION, February 14, 2018, TIJAM, J. 8. Unfair Competition Asia Brewery, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 103543, ibid 4 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW McDonald’s Corporation vs. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., G.R. No. 143993, ibid Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. vs. Supergreen, Inc., 518 SCRA 750 (2007) Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.,(CCBPI), Naga Plant vs. Quintin Gomez, et, al., G.R. No. 154491, November 14, 2008 Republic Gas Corporation (REGASCO), et. al. vs. Petron Corporation, et. al., G.R. No. 194062, ibid Shang Properties Realty Corporation (formerly the Shang Grand Tower Corporation) and Shang Properties Inc., (formerly EDSA Properties Holdings, Inc.) vs. St Francis Development Corporation, G.R. No. 190706, July 21, 2014 Roberto Co vs. Keng Huan Jerry Yeung and Emma Yeung, G.R. No. 212705, September 10, 2014 San Miguel Pure Foods Co., Inc. v. Foodsphere, Inc., G.R. Nos. 217781 & 217788, [June 20, 2018] 9. Trade Names or Business Names Converse Rubber Corporation vs. Universal Rubber Products, Inc., G.R. No. L-27906, January 8, 1987 Coffee Partners vs. San Francisco Coffee and Roastery, Inc., G.R. No. 169504, March 3, 2010 Fredco Manufacturing Corporation vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College, GR No. 185917, ibid Ecole De Cuisine Manille (Cordon Bleu of the Philippines), Inc. vs. Renaus Cointreau & Cie and Le Cordon Bleu Int’l, B.V., G.R. No. 185830, June 5, 2013 D. Copyrights 1. Basic Principles, Sections 172.2, 175 and 181 Manly Sportwear Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center, G.R. No. 165306, September 20, 2005 Fernando Juan v. Roberto Juan, Gr No. 221372, August 23 2017 2. Copyrightable Works United Features vs. Munsingwear Creation, 179 SCRA 260 (1989) 3. Non-Copyrightable Works Francisco Joaquin, Jr. vs. Franklin Drilon, et. al., G.R. No. 108946, January 28, 1999 Pearl & Dean (Philippine), Inc. vs. Shoemart, Inc., G.R.
Recommended publications
  • The Rise and Fall of Virata's Network: Technocracy and the Politics Of

    The Rise and Fall of Virata's Network: Technocracy and the Politics Of

    The Rise and Fall of Virata’s Network: Technocracy and the Politics of Economic Decision Making in the Philippines Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem* The influence of a technocratic network in the Philippines that was formed around Cesar E. A. Virata, prime minister under Ferdinand Marcos, rose during the martial law period (1972–86), when technocracy was pushed to the forefront of economic policy making. Applying concepts of networks, this essay traces the rise and even- tual collapse of Virata’s network to a three-dimensional interplay of relationships— between Virata and Marcos, Virata and the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and Marcos and the United States. Virata’s close links to social, academic, US, and business community networks initially thrust him into government, where he shared Marcos’s goal of attracting foreign investments to build an export-oriented economy. Charged with obtaining IMF and World Bank loans, Virata’s network was closely joined to Marcos as the principal political hub. Virata, however, had to contend with the networks of Marcos’s wife, Imelda, and the president’s “chief cronies.” While IMF and World Bank support offered Virata some leverage, his network could not control Imelda Marcos’s profligacy or the cronies’ sugar and coconut monopolies. In Virata’s own assessment, his network was weakened when Marcos’s health failed during an economic crisis in 1981 and after Benigno Aquino’s assassination in 1983. In those crises, Imelda Marcos’s network and Armed Forces Chief of Staff General Fabian Ver’s faction of the military network took power amidst the rise of an anti-dictatorship movement.
  • QUINWOOD-LIMITED-Vs.-CHITO-LU-AND-CRISTINA-YAO-IPC-No.-14-2009-00245

    QUINWOOD-LIMITED-Vs.-CHITO-LU-AND-CRISTINA-YAO-IPC-No.-14-2009-00245

    WTElLECTLJAL FBtWERTY 0FF1C & OF THE MUMMES QUINWOOD LIMITED, J IPCNo. 14-2009-00245 Opposer, Opposition to: Appln. Serial No. 4-2008-013003 } Date Filed: 22 October 2008 -versus- TM: "POCHAI PILLS and > CHINESE CHARACTERS" CHITO LU and CRISTINA YAO, } Respondent- Applicant. } x ■—X NOTICE OF DECISION ANGARA ABELLO CONCEPClON REGALA & CRUZ Counsel for Opposer 22™ Floor, ACCRALAW Tower Second Avenue corner 30'" Street Crescent Park West, Bonffacio Global City 0399 Taguig, Metro Manila MR, ANGEL O. OLANDRES, JR. For Respondent-Applicant No 963 -IP Rrzal Avenue, Poblacion Maksti City GREETINGS: Please be informed thai Decision No 2017 - dated December 15, 2017 (copy enclosed) was promulgated in The above entitled case. Pursuant to Section 2. Rule 9 of the IPOPHL Memorandum Circular No 16-007 series of 2016, any party may appeal The decision To ihe Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs within ten (10) days after receipt of the decision together with the payment of applicable fees. Taguig Cfly. December 22 2017. -RTLW F. RETUTAL ■RS IV Bureau of Legal Affairs O2B Upper McKinley McKlnhey HIM To«n Center Fort BcnrfaciQ 1G34 JNTH.LECTUAL OF TH F PHJUP Pi N Fi QUINWOOD LIMITED, IPC NO, 14-2009-00245 Opposer, Opposition to: -versus- Appln. Serial No.: 4-2008-013003 Filing Date: 22 October 200B TM:"PO CHAI PILLS and CHITO LU and CRISTINA YAO, CHINESE CHARACTERS" Respondents. x x Decision No. 2017- OECISION QUINWOOD LIMITED1 filed a Verified Opposition to Trademark Application Serial No. 4-2003-013003. The application, filed by CHITO LU and CRfSTINA YAO (Respondents}*, covers the mark "PO CHAI PILLS AND CHINESE CHARACTERS" for use on "dietary food supplement for slimming/fat reducing (tablet), Chinese medicine or Chinese medicinal capsule for purpose of eliminating fats, simple obesity and expelling toxins" under Class 5 of the International Classification of Goods3, The Opposer relies on the following grounds to support its opposition; "1.
  • The Politics of Economic Reform in the Philippines the Case of Banking Sector Reform Between 1986 and 1995

    The Politics of Economic Reform in the Philippines the Case of Banking Sector Reform Between 1986 and 1995

    The Politics of Economic Reform in the Philippines The Case of Banking Sector Reform between 1986 and 1995 A thesis submitted for the degree of PhD School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) University of London 2005 Shingo MIKAMO ProQuest Number: 10673052 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10673052 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 2 Abstract This thesis is about the political economy of the Philippines in the process of recovery from the ruin of economic crisis in the early 1980s. It examines the dynamics of Philippine politics by focussing on banking sector reform between 1986 and 1995. After the economic turmoil of the early 1980s, the economy recovered between 1986 and 1996 under the Aquino and Ramos governments, although the country is still facing numerous economic challenges. After the "Asian currency crisis" of 1997, the economy inevitably decelerated again. However, the Philippines was seen as one of the economies least adversely affected by the rapid depreciation of its currency. The existing literature tends to stress the roles played by international financial structures, the policy preferences of the IMF, the World Bank and the US government and the interests of the dominant social force as decisive factors underlying economic and banking reform policy-making in the Philippines.
  • Use Requirements for Trademarks- Avoidance of Cancellation Actions for Non-Use

    Use Requirements for Trademarks- Avoidance of Cancellation Actions for Non-Use

    Use Requirements for Trademarks- Avoidance of Cancellation Actions for Non-Use MARY JUDE V. CANTORIAS1 Introduction Under Philippine law, a trademark right is considered to be a form of property. As an attribute of ownership over such property, the owner of a registered mark enjoys the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owner’s consent from using in the course of trade such mark in relation to the products or services for which it is registered, and in certain cases, prevent altogether the use of such registered mark in relation to entirely dissimilar products or services, where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. Republic Act 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IP Code)2 mandates that rights to a mark shall be acquired solely through registration made validly in accordance with its (RA 8293) provisions. In some other jurisdictions however, trademark rights may be established either through “actual use in commerce” or through “registration” with the trademark office or both. Due to the diverse nature of trademark rights enforcement and protection, and its territorial nature, an effort to harmonize, if not unify, the rules through international law came into play. The first successful attempt to treat protection of intellectual property as an item of trade negotiations among nations, and perhaps to establish the minimum requirements for IP rights protection, is the TRIPS Agreement or the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Annex 1-C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.3 Article 15.3 of the TRIPS Agreement essentially provides that: 1 Lecturer, Arellano University School of Law.
  • 14-2007-00054 Opposer } Opposition To: } -Versus- } Appl'n Serial No

    14-2007-00054 Opposer } Opposition To: } -Versus- } Appl'n Serial No

    INTELLECTUALiPROPERTYP PHILIPPINES EMERALD GARMENTS MFG. CORP., } Inter Partes Case No. 14-2007-00054 Opposer } Opposition to: } -versus- } Appl'n Serial No.. : 4-2001-009602 } Date Filed : 21 December 2001 } Trademark : "LEE & OGIVE CURVE THE H.D. LEE COMPANY, INC., } DESIGN" Respondent-Applicant } x----------------------------------------------------x Decision No. 2008- q6 This case pertains to an opposition to the registration of the mark "LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN" bearing Application Serial No. 4-2001-009602 filed on December 21, 2001 covering the goods "outer clothing namely, jeans, casual pants, trousers, slacks, shorts, jackets, vests, shirts, blouses, sweaters, tops, skirts, jumpers, caps, hats, socks, shoes, suspenders, belts and bandanas" falling under Class 25 of the International Classification of goods which application was published in the Electronic Gazette (E- Gazette)of the Intellectual Property Philippines (IPP) officially released on January 5, 2007. The Opposer in the instant opposition is "EMERALD GARMENTS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION", a corporation duly organized and existing under under the laws of the Philippines, with principal office at No. 52 Santiago Street, San Antonio, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City. The Respondent-Applicant on the other hand, is "THE H.D. LEE COMPANY, INC." a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with principal office at 103 Springer Building, First Floor, Concord Plaza, 3411 Silverside Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19810, United States of America. "1. The approval of the application in question is contrary to Section 123.1 (d) of Republic Act No. 8293; "2. The approval of the application in question will violate Opposer's right to the exclusive use of the trademarks "DOUBLE CURVE LINE" and "DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE" which it owns and has been using on similar goods since 1980 and 1973, respectively; "3.
  • THIRD DIVISION June 7, 2017 G.R. No. 210693 EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner Vs. the H.D. LEE COMPANY, INC

    THIRD DIVISION June 7, 2017 G.R. No. 210693 EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner Vs. the H.D. LEE COMPANY, INC

    11/5/2020 G.R. No. 210693 Today is Thursday, November 05, 2020 Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive THIRD DIVISION June 7, 2017 G.R. No. 210693 EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner vs. THE H.D. LEE COMPANY, INC., Respondent R E S O L U T I O N REYES, J.: Before the Court is the Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 filed by Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation (Emerald) against The H.D. Lee Company, Inc. (H.D. Lee) to assail the Decision 2 and Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated April 8, 2013 and January 6, 2014, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 126253. The CA reversed the Decision 4 dated August 10, 2012, of the Intellectual Property Office's (IPO) then Director General Ricardo R. Blancaflor (DG Blancaflor) in Inter Partes Case No. 14-2007-00054, approving H.D. Lee's application for registration of the trademark "LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN." On December 21, 2001, H.D. Lee filed before the IPO an application for the registration of the trademark, "LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN." H.D. Lee claimed that the said mark was first used in the Philippines on October 31, 1996. Relative thereto, Application No. 4-2201-009602, on outer clothing categorized under Class 25, which includes jeans, casual pants, trousers, slacks, shorts, jackets, vests, shirts, blouses, sweaters, tops, skirts, jumpers, caps, hats, socks, shoes, suspenders, belts and bandannas, was filed. Within three years from the filing of the application, H.D. Lee submitted to the IPO a Declaration of Actual Use of the mark.
  • Intellectual Property Law

    Intellectual Property Law

    Haystacks Intellectual Property Law Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola 2004 Shared under Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Philippines license. Some Rights Reserved. Table of Contents Asia Brewery vs. CA, GR 103543, 5 July 1993 …......... 1 Western Equipment vs. Reyes, GR 27897, 2 December 1927 …......... 8 Philips Export BV vs. CA, Gr 96161, 21 February 1992 …......... 10 Asari Yoko v. Kee Boc, GR L-14086, 20 January 1961 …......... 14 Sterling Products Vs. Farbenfabriken Bayer, GR L-19906, 30 April 1969 …......... 15 Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. lAC, GR 75420, 15 November 1991 …......... 21 Emerald Garment v CA, GR 100098, 29 December 1995 …......... 25 Converse Rubber vs. Universal Rubber, GR L-27906, 8 January 1986 …......... 31 Pagasa Industrial vs. CA, GR L-54158, 31 August 1984 …......... 35 La Chemise Lacoste vs. Fernandez, GR 63796-97, 21 May 1984 …......... 36 Fruit of the Loom vs. CA, GR L-32747, 29 November 1984 …......... 44 Del Monte vs. CA, GR L-78325, 23 January 1990 …......... 46 246 Corporation v. Daway, GR 157 216, 20 November 2003 …......... 50 Pearl & Dean v. Shoemart, GR 148222, 15 August 2003 …......... 53 This collection contains fourteen (14) cases summarized in this format by Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a junior law student) during the First Semester, school year 2004-2005 in the Intellectual Property Law class under Atty. Arnaldo Espinas at the Arellano University School of Law (AUSL). Compiled as PDF, July 2011. Berne Guerrero entered AUSL in June 2002 and eventually graduated from AUSL in 2006. He passed the Philippine bar examinations immediately after (April 2007). www.berneguerrero.com Haystacks (Berne Guerrero) [1] Asia Brewery vs.
  • FINAL.Lantah's Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction.071218.WITH TABLES

    FINAL.Lantah's Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction.071218.WITH TABLES

    Case 3:18-cv-02811-CRB Document 20 Filed 07/12/18 Page 1 of 23 1 THOMPSON & CO. Donald A. Thompson (SBN 260076) 2 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500 3 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 506-8105 4 Email: [email protected] 5 Counsel for Defendant 6 And Counterclaimant, Lantah LLC. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 TELEGRAM MESSENGER INC, Case No. 3:18-CV-2811-CRB 12 Plaintiff, 13 DEFENDANT AND 14 COUNTERCLAIMANT LANTAH LLC’S: vs. 15 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR 16 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; LANTAH, LLC, 17 Defendant. 18 COUNTER-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND 19 20 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 21 22 Dates: August 3, 2018 (MPI) 23 August 24, 2018 (MSJ) Time: 10:00 am (Both) 24 Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor 25 Judge: Hon. Charles R. Breyer 26 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 27 28 LANTAH’S MSJ AND OPP. TO PI CASE NO. 18-CV-2811-CRB i Case 3:18-cv-02811-CRB Document 20 Filed 07/12/18 Page 2 of 23 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on August 24, 2018 at 10:00 am, or as soon thereafter 3 as the parties may be heard, Defendant and Counterclaimant Lantah LLC (“Lantah”) will and 4 hereby does move this Court for summary denial of the entire complaint filed by Plaintiff and 5 Counterclaim Defendant Telegram Messenger Inc (“Telegram”), pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6 7-2 and 56, as well as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
  • Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 100098 December 29, 1995 EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING

    Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 100098 December 29, 1995 EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING

    Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 100098 December 29, 1995 EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, BUREAU OF PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER and H.D. LEE COMPANY, INC., respondents. KAPUNAN, J.: In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation seeks to annul the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 November 1990 in CA-G.R. SP No. 15266 declaring petitioner's trademark to be confusingly similar to that of private respondent and the resolution dated 17 May 1991 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The record reveals the following antecedent facts: On 18 September 1981, private respondent H.D. Lee Co., Inc., a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, U.S.A., filed with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks & Technology Transfer (BPTTT) a Petition for Cancellation of Registration No. SR 5054 (Supplemental Register) for the trademark "STYLISTIC MR. LEE" used on skirts, jeans, blouses, socks, briefs, jackets, jogging suits, dresses, shorts, shirts and lingerie under Class 25, issued on 27 October 1980 in the name of petitioner Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation, a domestic corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws. The petition was docketed as Inter Partes Case No. 1558.1 Private respondent, invoking Sec. 37 of R.A. No. 166 (Trademark Law) and Art. VIII of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property,
  • Trademark Law in a Knotshell:* from Caves to Cyberspace

    Trademark Law in a Knotshell:* from Caves to Cyberspace

    ATENEO LAW JOURNAL for the cancellation of petitioner union's registration. Hence, the allegation of mixed membership of supervisors and rank-and-file employees in a union may be a ground for a Petition for Cancellation of Union Registration and, Trademark Law in a Knotshell:* consequently, a ground to ask for the suspension of tht; certification election proceedings. From Caves to Cyberspace Ferdinand M. Negre** CONCLUSION The Supreme Court decisions that have been discussed are major causes for unwarranted delays in certification election cases. Unscrupulous employers take INTRODUCTION ••••...••.••.••••••...•..••••••••.......••.• 466 I. BRIEF HISTORY ...........••.••••...••••.....•.....•••.. ·467 · advantage of these rulings in order to delay the certification election A. The Philippine Experience pfoceedings, and consequently, the conduct of the election itself and the B. International Treaties · cdmmencement of collective bargaining negotiations. With the application of II. LEGISLATION: TRADEMARK LAw UNDER REPUBLIC AcT 8293 ......... 469 the\ rulings; baseless petitions for the cancellation of union registrations have A. System qf Registration been, and will be, filed. Many certification election proceedings have been, B. Internet-to-Use Applications and '·will be, suspended. C. The Register This delay in certification election cases certainly works against labor. D. What Are Registrable Marks During the pendency of the certification election proceedings, many incidents E. AbantJonment qf a Mark can happen that will adversely affect, if not defeat altogether, the workers' F. Selection and Pre-Clearance qf a Mark exercise, of their right to self-organization. Union leaders and members can be I. Selection terminated, legally or illegally. The employers' businesses may be closed, again, 2. Pre-Clearance legally or illegally.· Or worse, the workers themselves may lose interest, if not G.
  • INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE IPO Building, 3 51 Sen

    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE IPO Building, 3 51 Sen

    Republic of the Philippines OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OAKLEY, INC., APPEAL NO. 14-03-25 Petitioner-Appellee, INTER PARTES CASE NO . 4079 Petition for Cancellation : TM Registration No. 57569 - versus - Issued: 05 April 1994 Trademark: "OAKLEY" For: T-shirts, shorts, pants, sandos, WILLIE A. LAO, jeans, jackets, sweatshirts, Respondent-Registrant-Appellant . socks, polos X----- ---------X DECISIO N This concerns Decision No . 2002-13 rendered by the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (Director) on 13 June 2002 granting the Petition for 10 Cancellation filed by the Appellee OAKLEY, INC . (Appellee)' for the cancellation of Certificate of Registration No . 57569 issued on 05 April 1994 for the trademark OAKLEY of the Appellant WILLIE A . LAO (Appellant) Z used on t-shirts, shorts, pants, sandos, jeans, jackets, sweatshirts, socks and polos under Class 25 of the International Classification of Goods3 . • The controversy involves the determination as to : 1 A corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, U .S.A. with principal office at 10 Holland, Irvine, California 92718, U .S.A. (see Decision No. 2002-13 dated 13 June 2002, page 1). 2 Filipino citizen, with office address at 195-H, 8th Avenue Extension, Grace Park, Caloocan City, Philippines (see Decision No . 2002-13 dated 13 June 2002, page 1) . 3 Also known as the Nice Classification . It is based on a multilateral treaty administered by World Intellectual Property Organization, called the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks, which was concluded in 1957 . The Agreement is open to States party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property .
  • M__ Dated 28 June 2017 (Copy Enclosed) Was Promulgated in the Above Entitled Case

    M__ Dated 28 June 2017 (Copy Enclosed) Was Promulgated in the Above Entitled Case

    PHILIPPINE JIMMY K. TAN, } IPC No. 14-2013-00435 Petitioner, } Petition for Cancellation: } Reg. No. 4-2011-010582 -versus- } Date Filed: 06 August 2013 KING SY GO, } TM: PEACOCK Respondent-Registrant. } y -Y NOTICE OF DECISION ATTY. ESTRELLITA BELTRAN-ABELARDO Counsel for Petitioner Blk22Lot 13 Singkil Street, Lagro Subdivision, Novaliches Quezon City ATTY. JORGE CESAR M. SANDIEGO Respondent- Registrant's Representative Unit 15M Torre Venezia 170 Scout Santiago Street corner Timog Avenue, Quezon City GREETINGS: Please be informed that Decision No. 2017 -M__ dated 28 June 2017 (copy enclosed) was promulgated in the above entitled case. Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 9 of the IPOPHL Memorandum Circular No. 16-007 series of 2016, any party may appeal the decision to the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs within ten (10) days after receipt of the decision together with the payment of applicable fees. TaguigCity, 29 June 2017. MARILYN F. RETUTAL IPRS IV Bureau of Legal Affairs Republic of the Philippines INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE Intellectual Property Center # 28 Upper McKinley Road, McKinley Hill Town Center, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City 1634 Philippines •www.ipophil.gov.ph T: +632-2386300 • F: +632-5539480 •[email protected] IP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES JIMMY K. TAN, IPC NO. 14 - 2013- 00435 Petitioner, Petition for Cancellation: " versus " Reg. Serial No. 42011010582 TM: "PEACOCK" KING SY GO, Respondent-Registrant. DECISION NO. 2017 ■ 2kS> DECISION Mr. Jimmy K. Tan, (Petitioner),1 filed a Verified Petition for Cancellation of the Trademark Registration No. 4 - 2011 - 010582 on 25 October 2013. The subject trademark registration filed by Mr.