Professional Documents
Culture Documents
From the middle of the year 2006 up to September 2007, there has
been no significant change or development in the laws, rules and
regulations on Trademarks, Tradename and Service Name in the
Philippines, and in the legal practice related thereto.
However, in the area of jurisprudence, there are five (5) noteworthy
cases which are accordingly summarized hereunder for your guidance:
(1) McDonalds Corporation vs. MacJoy Fastfood Corporation
G.R. No. 166115
2 February 2007
Facts:
Respondent filed with the then Bureau of Patents Trademarks and
Technology Transfer, now the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), an
application for the registration of the trademark MACJOY & DEVICE for
fried chicken, chicken barbecue burgers, fries, spaghetti, palabok, tacos,
sandwiches, halo-halo and steaks under classes 29 and 30 of the
International Classification of Goods.
Petitioner opposed said application, claiming that the trademark
MACJOY & DEVICE so resembles its corporate logo, otherwise known as
the Golden Arches or M design and its marks McDonalds,
McChicken, MacFries, BigMac, McDo, McSpaghetti, McSnack,
and Mc, such that when used on identical or related goods, the
trademark applied for would confuse or deceive purchasers into believing
that the goods originate from the same source or origin. Petitioner also
alleged that the respondents use and adoption in bad faith of the MACJOY
& DEVICE mark would falsely tend to suggest a connection or affiliation
with petitioners restaurant services and food products, thus, constituting
a fraud upon the general public and further cause the dilution of the
distinctiveness of petitioners registered and internationally recognized
MCDONALDS marks to its prejudice and irreparable damage.
(2) Skechers U.S.A. vs. Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp. et al.
G.R. No. 164321 30 November 2006
Facts:
Petitioner engaged the services of a private investigation firm to
check if respondents are indeed engaged in the importation, distribution
and sale of unauthorized products bearing counterfeit or unauthorized
trademarks owned by petitioner. An investigator went to respondents
warehouse and saw different kinds and models of rubber shoes including
shoes bearing the S logo. He found that the shoes bearing the Strong
name with the S logo have the same style as petitioners shoes.
Petitioner filed a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) requesting assistance in stopping the illegal importation,
manufacture and sale of counterfeit products bearing the trademarks it
owns and in prosecuting the owners of the establishments engaged
therein. NBI representatives bought 24 pairs of rubber shoes bearing the
Strong name and the S logo. They then applied for search warrants
with the court, which eventually issued the same.
After seizure of their goods, respondents sought to quash the search
warrants on the ground that there is no confusing similarity between the
petitioners Skechers rubber shoes and respondents Strong rubber shoes.
The court eventually issued an order quashing the search warrants.
Issue:
Whether or not the court erred in concluding that the respondent is
not liable for trademark infringement where the sole issue is the existence
of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant.
Held:
1. The power to issue search warrants is exclusively vested with the
trial judges in the exercise of their judicial function. And inherent in the
courts power to issue search warrants is the power to quash warrants
already issued. After the judge has issued a warrant, he is not precluded
to subsequently quash the same, if he finds upon re-evaluation of the
evidence that no probable cause exists. Though there is no fixed rule for
the determination of the existence of probable cause since the existence
depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge
conducting the examination, however, the findings of the judge should not
disregard the facts before him nor run counter to the clear dictates of
reason.
2. The court was acting reasonably when it went into a discussion
of whether or not there was trademark infringement, this is so because in
the determination of the existence of probable cause for the issuance or
Held:
The Supreme Court agreed with petitioner that this case involves a
transitory or continuing offense of unfair competition. Pertinent too is the
Penal Code provision that enumerates the elements of unfair competition,
to wit: (a) That the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the
goods of another manufacturer or dealer; (b) That the general appearance
is shown in the (1) goods themselves, or in the (2) wrapping of their
packages, or in the (3) device or words therein, or in (4) any other feature
of their appearance; (c) That the offender offers to sell or sells those
goods or gives other persons a chance or opportunity to do the same with
a like purpose; and (d) That there is actual intent to deceive the public or
defraud a competitor.
Respondents imitation of the general appearance of petitioners
goods was done allegedly in Cavite. It sold the goods allegedly in
Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila. The alleged acts would constitute a
transitory or continuing offense. Thus, clearly, under the IP Code and
Penal Code, petitioner may apply for a search warrant in any court where
any element of the alleged offense was committed, including any of the
courts within the National Capital Region (Metro Manila).
Respondent alleges that it is a widely known brand name and that its
products are being internationally distributed.
The court issued search warrants against the establishments owned
by petitioner. This led to the seizure of various retail items such as
footwear, clothing, accessories, and leatherware for unfair competition.
Respondent filed the corresponding criminal complaints before the
Department of Justice (DOJ). In addition, respondent filed a separate civil
action for unfair competition, etc.
Since petitioner allegedly continued to sell and distribute
merchandise which bore the disputed marks, respondent later filed more
criminal complaints against petitioner before the DOJ for unfair
competition. But, before the issuance of a resolution by the DOJ, the
court issued an order quashing the search warrants.
The DOJ
subsequently issued a resolution recommending the filing of criminal
charges against petitioner. On appeal with the Secretary of Justice,
however, said resolution was reversed, and the criminal informations filed
against petitioner were withdrawn.
Issue:
Whether or not it was proper for the DOJ to recommend the
withdrawal of the informations filed due to the quashal of the search
warrants.
Held:
In its decision, the Court of Appeals held that the withdrawal
of the informations against petitioner, predicated on the quashal of the
search warrants, was a manifest error. The appellate court ruled that the
earlier finding of probable cause against petitioner was not affected by the
quashal of the warrants since independent evidence gathered by the NBI
from the test-buy operations it conducted in 1999 is sufficient to support
such finding.
By sustaining the decision of the Court of Appeals in said case, the
Supreme Court, ruled that probable cause exists for the re-filing of a
criminal case against petitioner for unfair competition under the IP Code.
The repeated confirmation of the finding of probable cause against
petitioner, which the Supreme Court cannot now overturn, effectively and
decisively determines the issues in this petition.
Petitioner does not dispute that the design and/or mark of such
Crown brand playing cards is owned by private respondents. In fact, there
is no allegation that the design and/or mark of such Crown brand playing
cards is a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of another
registered mark legally owned by another; hence, no crime of trademark
infringement appears to have been committed or perpetrated to warrant
the inference that the Crown brand playing cards are subject of the
offense as contemplated by the Rules of Court. All the more telling is the
contention of petitioner that it is the plastic container/case and its
marking that bear the reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
imitation of its registered mark. In other words, it is the design of the
plastic container/case that is alleged to have been utilized by private
respondents to deceive the public into believing that their Crown brand
playing cards are the same as those manufactured by petitioner.
10
Features
Indication
1.
of
Trademark
Infringemen
t
Proper Use
In Non-Use
Cancellation
Action
Remarks
11
12
N