Ipl Digests (25 August 2011)

8/10/2019 Ipl Digests (25 August 2011)

1/32


2/32

$n his Ans er' "etitioner said thataltho&+h =>: = is re+istered in the name of o""ositor' said trademark is not bein+&sed on soa"' b&t "&rely toilet articles%

ire%t+r + Patents& *he "rod&cts of the

"arties' hile s"eci4cally di@erent' are"rod&cts intended for &se in the home and&s&ally have common "&rchasers% *heavera+e "&rchasers are likely to associate>: la&ndry soa" ith >: "erf&me' li"stickand nail "olish or to think that the"rod&cts have common ori+in ors"onsorshi"%

ISSUE-, "etitioner is barred from &sin+ >:on +ran&lated soa"' a mark alreadyre+istered for &se on toilet articles'not ithstandin+ the absence of "rior &seof the mark on +ran&lated soa" DES%

3EL & *he circ&mstance of non:act&al &se of themark on +ran&lated soa" by Sy *&o' doesnot detract from the fact that he hasalready a ri+ht to s&ch a trademark andsho&ld' therefore' be "rotected% *heobservation of the 5irector of !atents tothe e@ect that =the avera+e "&rchasersare likely to associate >: la&ndry soa"

ith >: "erf&me' li"stick and nail "olishor to think that the "rod&cts havecommon ori+in or s"onsorshi"'= is indeed

ell taken%

$t does not matter that the "rod&ct &"onhich the trademark >: ill be &sed

Fla&ndry soa" is di@erent from those of Sy *&o s% #hile it is no lon+er necessary toestablish that the +oods of the "arties"ossess the same descri"tive "ro"erties'as "revio&sly reI&ired &nder the *rade

ark Act of 19 7' re+istration of atrademark sho&ld be ref&sed in cases

here there is a likelihood of conf&sion'mistake' or dece"tion' even tho&+h the+oods fall into di@erent cate+ories% *he"rod&cts of Sy *&o are common ho&seholditems no adays' in the same manner asla&ndry soa"% *he likelihood of "&rchasersto associate those "rod&cts to a commonori+in is not far:fetched% Both from thestand"oint of "riority of &se and for the"rotection of the b&yin+ "&blic and' of

co&rse' Sy *&o s ri+hts to the trademark=>: =' it becomes manifest that there+istration of said trademark in favor of Ch&a Che sho&ld be denied%

Sta! Ana s! )a'i4at "GAY#A&+&st 61' 19


3/32

1% *he 4ndin+s of the 5irector thatali at as the "rior ado"ter and &ser

of the mark cannot be contradicted'since his 4ndin+s ere based on factssti"&lated in the co&rse of the trial inthe interference "roceedin+s% 5&rin+

the "roceedin+s' the follo in+ assti"&lated

FSta% Ana is en+a+ed solely in theman&fact&re of shoes &nder the 4rmname J(-. E, SH-E

A,LJAC*L.E.S since A"ril 1979%%% *hat r% Jlorentino ali at has beenen+a+ed in the man&fact&re and saleof mens ear shirts' "olo shirts' and"ants' since 1976' &sin+ J(-. A,, asits trademark% *hat r% Jlorentino

ali at be+an &sin+ the trademark

J(-. A,, on shoes on 0an&ary 19


4/32

$a%ts& !etitioner as the 4rst to &se andre+ister the trademark CA $A in 1922and 19)9' res"ectively' on its "rod&cts

hich covers ve+etable and animal fats'"artic&larly lard' b&tter and cookin+ oil' allclassi4ed &nder Class ) FJods and

$n+redients of Jood %-n ,ovember 19< ' res"ondent 4led ana""lication for re+istration of the identicaltrademark CA $A for his ham "rod&ct'

hich like ise falls &nder Class ) %!etitioner o""osed citin+ Sec )Fd of the

*rademark (a 2%

*he 5irector of !atents rendered adecision allo in+ re+istration of thetrademark CA $A in favor of ,+ Sam%

Issue& WON t/e *r+du%t + res*+ndent, 4/i%/ is /a6, and t/+se+ *etiti+ner %+nsistin( + 'ard,-utter, %++7in( +i' and s+a* are s+re'ated t/at /e use + t/e sa6etrade6ar7 CA)IA9 +n said (++ds4+u'd 'i7e'. resu't in %+n usi+n as t+t/eir s+ur%e +r +ri(in! "NO#

Rati+& *he b&siness of the "arties arenon:com"etitive and their "rod&cts so&nrelated that the &se of identicaltrademarks are not likely to +ive rise toconf&sion' m&ch less ca&se dama+e to"etitioner%

$% *he ri+ht to trademark is a limited one'in the sense that others may &se the samemark on &nrelated +oods%

$$% Lnder Sec )Fd of the *rademark (a 're+istration of trademark hich soresembles another already re+istered or in&se sho&ld be denied here to allo s&chre+istration co&ld likely res&lt toconf&sion' mistake or dece"tion to thecons&mers% Conversely' 4/ere n+%+n usi+n is 'i7e'. t+ arise, as in t/is%ase, re(istrati+n + a si6i'ar +r e enidenti%a' 6ar7 6a. -e a''+4ed!

2 Sec)Fd "rovides as &nre+isterable a mark hichconsists of or com"rises a mark or tradename hichso resembles a mark or tradename "revio&sly &sedin the !hii""ines by another and not abandoned' asto be likely' hen a""lied to or &sed in connection

ith the +ods' b&siness services of the a""licant' toca&se conf&sion or mistake or to deceive "&rchasers%

$$$% A trademark is desi+ned to identify the&ser% B&t it s/+u'd -e s+ distin%ti eand su %ient'. +ri(ina' as t+ ena-'et/+se 4/+ %+6e int+ %+nta%t 4it/ itt+ re%+(ni:e instant'. t/e identit. +

t/e user! $t m&st be a/rmative andde4nite' si+ni4cant and distinctive'ca"able to indicate ori+in%

$O% $f a mark is so common"lace that itcannot be readily distin+&ished fromothers' then it is a""arent that it cannotidentify a "artic&lar b&siness3 and he ho4rst ado"ted it cannot be inK&red by anys&bseI&ent a""ro"riation or imitation byothers' and the "&blic ill not bedeceived%

CA $A descri"tive of a hole

+en&s of +arden "lants ithfra+rant hite No ers Camia' bein+ a +eneric and

common term' its a""ro"riation asa trademark' albeit in a fancif&lmanner in that it bears no relationto the "rod&ct it identi4es is valid%Ho ever' the de+ree of e?cl&siveness accorded to each&ser is closely restricted%

Camia as a trademark is far frombein+ distinctive% By itself' it doesnot identify "etitioner as the

man&fact&rer or "rod&cer of the+oods &"on hich said "mark is&sed F&nlike .ole?' Podak' Pote?

.ecords sho that the termCA $A has been re+istered as a

trademark not only by "etitionerb&t by 2 other concerns Foneen+a+ed in *hread and Darn andthe other en+a+ed in *e?tiles'Embroideries laces' etc%

O% #hile ham and some of the "rod&cts of "etitioner are classi4ed &nder Class ) '

this alone cannot serve as the decisivefactor in the resol&tion of hether or notthey are related +oods% E6*/asis s/+u'd-e +n t/e si6i'arit. + t/e *r+du%tsin +' ed and n+t +n t/e ar-itrar.%'assi5%ati+n +r (enera' des%ri*ti+n+ t/eir *r+*erties +r %/ara%teristi%s

5irector of !atents took intoacco&nt several factors s&ch as"robable "&rchaser attit&de and


5/32

habits' marketin+ activities' retailo&tlets and commercialim"ression%

$t as fo&nd that the "rod&cts of "etitioner and res"ondent does notmove in the same manner thro&+h

the same channels of trade *he +oods are so &nrelated thatcons&mers o&ld not in any"robability mistake one as theso&rce or ori+in of the "rod&ct of the other%

O$% Sec 1< of *rademark Act' in referrin+ tomerchandise of s&bstantially descri"tive

"ro"erties' embraces com"etitive andnoncom"etitive trademark infrin+ement'-ut it is n+t s+ e;tensi e as t+ -ea**'i%a-'e t+ %ases 4/ere t/e *u-'i%

4+u'd n+t reas+na-'. e;*e%t t/e*'ainti< t+ 6a7e +r se'' t/e sa6e%'ass + (++ds as t/+se 6ade +r s+'d-. de endant!

*he +oods of the "etitioner arebasically derived from ve+etableand animal fats' hile the "rod&ctof res"ondent is "rocessed from"i+;s le+s% A cons&mer o&ld notreasonably ass&me that "etitionerhas so diversi4ed its b&siness as toincl&de the "rod&ct of res"ondent%

ud(6ent& A/rmed%

Ess+ Standard Eastern, In%! ! CA"LI=#A&+&st 61' 1982 *eehankee' J.

Esso Standard Eastern' $nc%' then a forei+ncor"oration d&ly licensed to do b&siness inthe !hili""ines' is en+a+ed in the sale of "etrole&m "rod&cts hich are identi4ed

ith its trademark ESS-%

Lnited Ci+arette Cor"% is a domesticcor"oration then en+a+ed in theman&fact&re and sale of ci+arettes' after itacI&ired in ,ovember' 19 reversed

Issue& #-, there as a trademarkinfrin+ement Q,-R

Rati+&

*he la de4nes infrin+ement as the &seitho&t consent of the trademark o ner of

any =re"rod&ction' co&nterfeit' co"y orcolorable limitation of any re+istered markor tradename in connection ith the sale'o@erin+ for sale' or advertisin+ of any+oods' b&siness or services on or inconnection ith hich s&ch &se is likely toca&se conf&sion or mistake or to deceive"&rchasers or others as to the so&rce orori+in of s&ch +oods or services' or$dentity of s&ch b&siness3 or re"rod&ce'co&nterfeit' co"y or colorably imitate anys&ch mark or tradename and a""ly s&chre"rod&ction' co&nterfeit' co"y orcolorable limitation to labels' si+ns' "rints'"acka+es' ra""ers' rece"tacles oradvertisements intended to be &sed &"onor in connection ith s&ch +oods' b&sinessor services%=

I6*'i%it in t/is de5niti+n is t/e%+n%e*t t/at t/e (++ds 6ust -e s+re'ated t/at t/ere is a 'i7e'i/++deit/er + %+n usi+n + (++ds +r-usiness! B&t likelihood of conf&sion is arelative conce"t3 to be determined onlyaccordin+ to the "artic&lar' andsometimes "ec&liar' circ&mstances of each case%

But as t+ 4/et/er trade6ar7 in rin(e6ent e;ists de*ends +r t/e6+st *art u*+n 4/et/er +r n+t t/e(++ds are s+ related t/at t/e *u-'i%6a. -e, +r is a%tua''., de%ei ed and


6/32

6is'ed t/at t/e. %a6e r+6 t/e sa6e6a7er +r 6anu a%turer!

Jor non:com"etin+ +oods may bethose hich' tho&+h they are not inact&al com"etition' are so relatedto each other that it mi+ht

reasonably be ass&med that theyori+inate from one man&fact&rer%Non !ompeting +oods may also bethose hich' bein+ entirelyunrelated ' co&ld not reasonably beass&med to have a commonso&rce% $n the former case of related +oods' conf&sion of b&siness co&ld arise o&t of the &seof similar marks3 in the latter caseof non:related +oods' it co&ld not%

G++ds are re'ated 4/en t/e. -e'+n(

t+ t/e sa6e %'ass +r /a e t/e sa6edes%ri*ti e *r+*erties? 4/en t/e.*+ssess t/e sa6e */.si%a' attri-utes+r essentia' %/ara%teristi%s 4it/re eren%e t+ t/eir +r6, %+6*+siti+n,te;ture +r @ua'it.! T/e. 6a. a's+ -ere'ated -e%ause t/e. ser e t/e sa6e*ur*+se +r are s+'d in (r+%er. st+res!T/e 6ere a%t t/at +ne *ers+n /asad+*ted and used a trade6ar7 +n /is(++ds d+es n+t *re ent t/e ad+*ti+nand use + t/e sa6e trade6ar7 -.+t/ers +n unre'ated arti%'es + adi


7/32

NO, -e%ause t/e (++ds are n+n%+6*etin(D

Rati+&It is esta-'is/ed d+%trine t/ate6*/asis s/+u'd -e +n t/e si6i'arit.

+ t/e *r+du%ts in +' ed and n+t +nt/e ar-itrar. %'assi5%ati+n +r (enera'des%ri*ti+n + t/eir *r+*erties +r%/ara%teristi%s and t/at t/e 6ere a%tt/at +ne *ers+n /as ad+*ted andused a trade6ar7 +n /is (++ds d+esn+t *re ent t/e ad+*ti+n and use + t/e sa6e trade6ar7 -. +t/ers +nunre'ated arti%'es + a di


8/32

face evidence of the validity of there+istration' the re+istrant;so nershi" of the mark ortradename' and of the re+istrant;se,!lusive right to use the same in!onne!tion "ith the goods-

%usiness or servi!es spe!i ed inthe !erti !ate ' s&bKect t anyconditions and limitations statedtherein

o *his means that the mantle of "rotection of the la e?tends onlyto the +oods &sed by the 4rst &seras s"eci4ed in its certi4cate of re+istration

Issue& #ill the "revio&s trademark of Jaber+e on &nrelated +oods bar Co Ben+Pay;s re+istration of Br&te for briefsM

F,-Rati+&Section 2 is controllin+ over sec% )Fd %

*he r&le is that the cla&se hich comeslater shall be +iven "aramo&nt im"ortanceover an anterior "roviso &"on the"res&m"tion that it e?"resses the latestand dominant "&r"ose%

*his means that Co Ben+ Pay cana""ro"riate its symbol for briefs beca&seas remarked in Sterlin+ v% JarbenfabrikenBayer

.eally' if the certi4cate of re+istrationere deemed as incl&din+ +oods not

s"eci4ed therein' then a sit&ation mayarise hereby an a""licant may betem"ted to re+ister a trademark on anyand all +oods hich his mind mayconceive even if he had never intended to&se the trademark for the said +oods% #ebelieve that s&ch omnib&s re+istration isnot contem"lated by *rademark (a %

#ithal' K&d+in+ from the "hysicalattrib&tes of "etitioner;s and res"ondent;s"rod&cts' there can be do do&bt thatconf&sion or likelihood of dece"tion to theavera+e "&rchaser is &nlikely since the+oods are non:com"etin+ and &nrelated%A "&rchaser o&t to b&y B.L*E brief o&ldde4nitely not be mistaken or misled intob&yin+ B.L* after:shave or deodorant%

Can+n a-us/i7i ais/a s! CA"CIELA#G-,TAGA:.EDES' J% F2

$ACTS& -n 0an&ary 17' 1987' "rivate

res"ondent ,S. .&bber Cor"orationF"rivate res"ondent 4led ana""lication for re+istration of the markCANON for sandals in the B!***%

A Oeri4ed ,otice of -""osition as4led by "etitioner' a forei+ncor"oration d&ly or+anized ande?istin+ &nder the la s of 0a"an%

*he evidence "resented by "etitionerconsisted of its certi4cates of re+istration for the mark CA,-, invario&s co&ntries coverin+ +oodsbelon+in+ to class 2 F"aints' chemical

"rod&cts' toner' and dye st&@ %!etitioner also s&bmitted in evidenceits !hili""ine *rademark .e+istration'sho in+ its o nershi" over thetrademark CA,-, also &nder class 2%

*he B!*** iss&ed its decisiondismissin+ the o""osition of "etitionerand +ivin+ d&e co&rse to "rivateres"ondent s a""lication for there+istration of the trademark CA,-,%

*he CA a/rmed the decision of B!***%

ISSUE #-, "rivate res"ondent may &se

the mark CA,-, for its sandals Fclass 27des"ite re+istration of said mark by"etitioner for class 2 +oods FDES

-rdinarily' the o nershi" of a trademarkor tradename is a "ro"erty ri+ht that theo ner is entitled to "rotect as mandatedby the *rademark (a % Ho ever' 4/en atrade6ar7 is used -. a *art. +r a*r+du%t in 4/i%/ t/e +t/er *art. d+esn+t dea', t/e use + t/e sa6etrade6ar7 +n t/e 'atterHs *r+du%t%ann+t -e a'id'. +- e%ted t+!

a *he certi4cates of re+istration for thetrademark CA,-, in other co&ntriesand in the !hili""ines as "resented by"etitioner' clearly sho ed that saidcerti4cates of re+istration cover +oodsbelon+in+ to class 2 F"aints' chemical"rod&cts' toner' dyest&@ % -n thisbasis' the B!*** correctly r&led that"rivate res"ondent can &se the


9/32

trademark CA,-, for its +oodsclassi4ed as class 27 Fsandals %

b !etitioner failed to attach evidencethat o&ld convince this Co&rt that"etitioner has also embarked in the

"rod&ction of foot ear "rod&cts%a%erge /n!. vs. /AC *he certi4cate of

re+istration confers &"on the trademarko ner the e?cl&sive ri+ht to &se its o nsymbol only to those goods spe!i ed inthe !erti !ate ' s&bKect to the conditionsand limitations stated therein%

T/us, t/e e;%'usi e ri(/t + *etiti+nerin t/is %ase t+ use t/e trade6ar7 CANON is 'i6ited t+ t/e *r+du%ts%+ ered -. its %erti5%ate + re(istrati+n!

c *he "rod&cts involved are so unrelatedthat the "&blic ill not be misled thatthere is the sli+htest ne?&s bet een"etitioner and the +oods of "rivateres"ondent%

$n cases of conf&sion of b&siness or ori+in'the I&estion that &s&ally arises is hetherthe res"ective +oods or services of thesenior &ser and the K&nior &ser are sorelated as to likely ca&se conf&sion of b&siness or ori+in' and thereby render thetrademark or tradenames conf&sin+lysimilar% 0oods are related "hen they %elong to the same !lass or have thesame des!riptive properties1 "hen they

possess the same physi!al attri%utes or essential !hara!teristi!s "ith re$eren!e totheir $orm- !omposition- te,ture or *uality %2hey may also %e related %e!ause they serve the same purpose or are sold ingro!ery stores.

Lndo&btedly' the "aints' chemical"rod&cts' toner and dyest&@ of "etitionerthat carry the trademark CA,-, are&nrelated to sandals' the "rod&ct of "rivate res"ondent% 2he t"o !lasses o$

produ!ts in this !ase 3o" throughdi4erent trade !hannels. *he "rod&cts of "etitioner are sold thro&+h s"ecialchemical stores or distrib&tors hile the"rod&cts of "rivate res"ondent are sold in

+rocery stores' sari:sari stores andde"artment stores%

ISSUE #-, "etitioner may "ro"erlyinvoke the "rotective mantle of the !arisConvention F,-

!etitioner asserts that it has the e?cl&siveri+ht to the mark CA,-, beca&se it forms"art of its cor"orate name or tradename'"rotected by Article 8 6 of the !arisConvention% !etitioner I&estions thea""licability of the +&idelines ) embodiedin the emorand&m of then inister of

*rade and $nd&stry .oberto -n+"in hichaccordin+ to "etitioner im"lements Article


10/32

=reKect all "endin+ a""lications for!hili""ine re+istration of si+nat&reand other orld famo&strademarks by a""licants otherthan the ori+inal o ners or &sers%=

*he term = trade6ar7 = is de4ned by .A1


11/32

modi4ed by Section 126%1Ff of the$ntellect&al !ro"erty Code% and !.-PE,,E> trademarks F.e+istrationCancellation Case %

*he .*C fo&nd P&nnan and S"ortsConce"t liable for $nfrin+ement andLnfair Com"etition and ordered themto "ay S&"erior dama+es%

$ntervenin+ 5evelo"ments *he $!- andCA .&lin+s in the .e+istration Cancellation

Case 5&rin+ the a""eal to the CA' P&nnan4led a anifestation and otion"rayin+ that the decision of the B&rea&of (e+al A@airs FB(A 5irector and thedecision of the $!- 5irector General inthe .e+istration Cancellation Case bemade of record and be +iven ei+ht bythe CA in resolvin+ the $nfrin+ementand Lnfair Com"etition Case%o *he B(A 5irector cancelled

S&"erior;s re+istration of thetrademarks% $t fo&nd that S&"erior'

as a distrib&tor' did not acI&ire any"ro"rietary interest in the"rinci"al;s FP&nnan;s trademarks%

o *he $!- 5irector General deniedS&"erior;s a""eal%

*he CA reversed the .*C% $t dismissedS&"erior;s com"laint for $nfrin+ementand Lnfair Com"etition on the +ro&ndthat S&"erior as a mere distrib&torand had no ri+ht to re+ister thetrademarks since the ri+ht to re+ister atrademark is based on o nershi"%

S&"erior I&estioned the $!- 5irector

General;s r&lin+ in the .e+istrationCancellation Case before the CA% *heCA dismissed S&"erior;s "etition% *heCA decision as declared 4nal ande?ec&tory% Hence' S&"erior;sre+istration of the trademarks nostands e@ectively cancelled%


28/32

o *his decision as rendered a$ter theCA decision in the $nfrin+ement andLnfair Com"etition case%

Issues&1D WON t/ere 4as in rin(e6ent NOD

2D WON t/ere 4as un air %+6*etiti+nNOD

Rati+&1D N+ in rin(e6ent -e%ause Su*eri+r

d+es n+t +4n t/e trade6ar7s!

T+ esta-'is/ trade6ar7 in rin(e6ent,t/e +''+4in( e'e6ents 6ust -e*r+ en&1! T/e a'idit. + *'ainti< s 6ar7?2! T/e *'ainti< s +4ners/i* + t/e

6ar7? andK! T/e use + t/e 6ar7 +r its

%+'+ra-'e i6itati+n -. t/e a''e(edin rin(er resu'ts in 'i7e'i/++d + %+n usi+n!9

*he second element the "lainti@;so nershi" of the trademark as hatthe .e+istration Cancellation Case decided

ith 4nality% *he doctrine of res udi!ataby concl&siveness of K&d+ment barsS&"erior;s case for infrin+ement%

*he CA decided that the re+istration of thePE,,E> and !.- PE,,E> trademarks

sho&ld be cancelled beca&se S&"erior asa mere distrib&tor and as not the o nerof' and co&ld not in the 4rst "lace havevalidly re+istered these trademark% *h&s'as of the 4nality of the CA decision' thesetrademark re+istrations ere e@ectivelycancelled and S&"erior as no lon+er there+istrant of the trademarks%

Sec% 22 of .A 1


29/32

T/ere %an -e in rin(e6ent 4it/+utun air %+6*etiti+n su%/ as 4/en t/ein rin(er dis%'+ses +n t/e 'a-e's%+ntainin( t/e 6ar7 t/at /e6anu a%tures t/e (++ds, t/us*re entin( t/e *u-'i% r+6 -ein(

de%ei ed t/at t/e (++ds +ri(inater+6 t/e trade6ar7 +4ner!

$n this case' no iss&e of conf&sion arisesbeca&se the same man&fact&red "rod&ctsare sold3 only the o nershi" of thetrademarks is at iss&e% Also' P&nnan;s,otice and #arnin+ by its terms "reventsthe "&blic from bein+ deceived that the+oods ori+inated from S&"erior since thenotice clearly indicated that P&nnan is theman&fact&rer of the +oods bearin+ thetrademarks PE,,E> and !.- PE,,E>%

In N Out Bur(er s! Se/4ani "TRACE#

$a%ts& $,:,:-L* is an American b&r+er chain'

not doin+ b&siness in the !hili""ines% $tso&+ht to re+ister its trademark =$,:,:-L*= and =$,:,:-L* B&r+er V Arro5esi+n ith the B&rea& of *rademarks

$t fo&nd o&t' ho ever' that thetrademark for Y$, , -L*; had alreadybeen obtained by Seh ani' $nc% *h&s' it

4led an administrative com"lainta+ainst Seh ani for &nfair com"etitionand cancellation of trademarkre+istration%

o $,:,:-L* alle+ed that itstrademark has been re+istered allover the orld and isinternationally ell:kno n% *he&se by Seh ani of a conf&sin+lysimilar or identical trademark in aresta&rant b&siness o&ld mislead"&rchasers of "etitioner;s +oods

T/e IPO ire%t+r + Le(a' A


30/32

+ er ad6inistrati e %+6*'aints +rinte''e%tua' *r+*ert. ri(/ts i+'ati+ns

YESD

Rati+&Section 1 of the $ntellect&al !ro"erty

Code s"eci4cally identi4es the f&nctions of the B&rea& of (e+al A@airs' th&s

Section 1 % 2he #ureau o$ Legal A4airs % *he B&rea& of (e+al A@airs shall have thefollo in+ f&nctions

1 %13ear and de%ide o""osition to thea""lication for re+istration of marks3%an%e''ati+n + trade6ar7s 3 s&bKect tothe "rovisions of Section @F o$ thesame Code- $ound under 6art /// thereo$

parti!ularly governing trademar s- servi!emar s- and tradenames- must prevail.!roceedin+ therefrom' the Co&rt of A""eals incorrectly concl&ded that allactions involvin+ trademarks' incl&din+char+es of &nfair com"etition' are &nderthe e?cl&sive K&risdiction of civil co&rts%

S&ch inter"retation is not s&""orted bythe "rovisions of the $ntellect&al !ro"ertyCode% W/i'e Se%ti+n 1FK t/ere+ estsin %i i' %+urts urisdi%ti+n + er %ases+ un air %+6*etiti+n, n+t/in( in t/e


31/32

said se%ti+n states t/at t/e re(u'ar%+urts /a e s+'e urisdi%ti+n + erun air %+6*etiti+n %ases, t+ t/ee;%'usi+n + ad6inistrati e -+dies! -nthe contrary' Sections 1< and 1 ' hichare also fo&nd &nder !art $$$ of the

$ntellect&al !ro"erty Code' reco+nize theconc&rrent K&risdiction of civil co&rts andthe $!- over &nfair com"etition cases%

*hese t o "rovisions read

Section 1< % Right o$ oreign Corporationto Sue in 2rademar or Servi!e Mar En$or!ement A!tion % Any forei+n nationalor K&ridical "erson ho meets thereI&irements of Section 6 of this Act anddoes not en+a+e in b&siness in the!hili""ines may brin+ a civil orad6inistrati e a%ti+n here&nder foro""osition' cancellation' infrin+ement'&nfair com"etition' or false desi+nation of ori+in and false descri"tion' hether ornot it is licensed to do b&siness in the!hili""ines &nder e?istin+ la s%? ? ? ?

Section 1 % 6enalties % $nde"endent of thecivil and ad6inistrati e san%ti+nsim"osed by la ' a criminal "enalty of im"risonment from t o F2 years to 4veF7 years and a 4ne ran+in+ from Jiftytho&sand "esos F!7 ' to * o h&ndredtho&sand "esos F!2 ' ' shall beim"osed on any "erson ho is fo&nd +&iltyof committin+ any of the acts mentionedin Section 177' Section1


32/32

Seh ani has also been &sin+ $t as alsosho n that it has been &sin+ anothertrademark of "etitioner;s' 5o&ble:5o&ble'for its hamb&r+er "rod&cts%

Also' started constr&ctin+ the resta&rant

only after the Q"etitionerR demanded thatthe latter desist from claimin+ o nershi"of the mark $,:,:-L* and vol&ntarilycancel their trademark re+istration%

Documents

Ipl Digests (25 August 2011)