Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor foun...
La Chemise Lacoste. vs. Fernandez
GR No. L-63796-97, May 2, 1984
FACTS:
La chemise Lacoste is a French corporation and the actual owner of the trademarks “Lacoste,” “Chemise Lacoste,” “Crocodile Device” and a composite mark consisting of the word “Lacoste” and a representation of a crocodile/alligator, used on clothings and other goods sold in many parts of the world and which has been marketed in the Philippines (notably by Rustans) since 1964. La Chemise Lacoste. VS. Fernandez
Read: Asia Brewery, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
In 1975 and 1977, Hemandas Q. Co. was issued certificate of registration for the trademark “Chemise Lacoste and Q Crocodile Device” both in the supplemental and Principal Registry.
In 1980, La Chemise Lacoste SA filed for the registration of the “Crocodile device” and “Lacoste”.
Games and Garments (Gobindram Hemandas, assignee of Hemandas Q.Co.) opposed the registration of “Lacoste.” La Chemise Lacoste. VS. Fernandez
In 1983, La Chemise Lacoste filed with the NBI a letter-complaint alleging acts of unfair competition committed by Hemandas and requesting the agency’s assistance.
A search warrant was issued by the trial court. La Chemise Lacoste. VS. Fernandez
Various goods and articles were seized upon the execution of the warrants.
Hemandas filed motion to quash the warrants, which the court granted.
The search warrants were recalled, and the goods ordered to be returned.
La Chemise Lacoste filed a petition for certiorari. La Chemise Lacoste. VS. Fernandez
Read: 246 Corporation vs. Daway
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trademark “Chemise Lacoste and Q Crocodile Device” is registrable.
HELD:
No.
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. La Chemise Lacoste. VS. Fernandez
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.” La Chemise Lacoste. VS. Fernandez
READ FULL TEXT
GR No. L-63796-97, May 2, 1984
FACTS:
La chemise Lacoste is a French corporation and the actual owner of the trademarks “Lacoste,” “Chemise Lacoste,” “Crocodile Device” and a composite mark consisting of the word “Lacoste” and a representation of a crocodile/alligator, used on clothings and other goods sold in many parts of the world and which has been marketed in the Philippines (notably by Rustans) since 1964. La Chemise Lacoste. VS. Fernandez
Read: Asia Brewery, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
In 1975 and 1977, Hemandas Q. Co. was issued certificate of registration for the trademark “Chemise Lacoste and Q Crocodile Device” both in the supplemental and Principal Registry.
In 1980, La Chemise Lacoste SA filed for the registration of the “Crocodile device” and “Lacoste”.
Games and Garments (Gobindram Hemandas, assignee of Hemandas Q.Co.) opposed the registration of “Lacoste.” La Chemise Lacoste. VS. Fernandez
In 1983, La Chemise Lacoste filed with the NBI a letter-complaint alleging acts of unfair competition committed by Hemandas and requesting the agency’s assistance.
A search warrant was issued by the trial court. La Chemise Lacoste. VS. Fernandez
Various goods and articles were seized upon the execution of the warrants.
Hemandas filed motion to quash the warrants, which the court granted.
The search warrants were recalled, and the goods ordered to be returned.
La Chemise Lacoste filed a petition for certiorari. La Chemise Lacoste. VS. Fernandez
Read: 246 Corporation vs. Daway
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trademark “Chemise Lacoste and Q Crocodile Device” is registrable.
HELD:
No.
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. La Chemise Lacoste. VS. Fernandez
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.” La Chemise Lacoste. VS. Fernandez
READ FULL TEXT
Comments
Post a Comment