14. 246 Corp vs Daway - Digest

5/24/2018 14. 246 Corp vs Daway - Digest

1/7

Digest

246 Corporation vs Daway

Facts:

In 1998, Montres Rolex SA and Rolex Centre Phil. Ltd., oners and !ro!rietors o" Rolex andCron De#ice "iled against $%& Cor!oration, doing '(siness as Rolex M(sic Lo(nge, a s(it "or

trade)ar* in"ringe)ent and da)ages. In $+++, $%& Cor!. "iled a )otion "or !reli)inar hearing

on its a""ir)ati#e de"ense- hich the co(rt therea"ter iss(ed a s('!oena ad testi"icand() to Att.Atiena. Montres Rolex o!!osed, and the trial co(rt /(ashed the s('!oena. $%& cor!. "iled a

!etition "or certiorari 'e"ore the Co(rt o" A!!eals, hich as dis)issed. 0ence, the !etition "or

re#ie on certiorari.

Iss(e: hether the 2(nior (se o" a registered )ar* on entirel di""erent goods s('sists.

0eld: 3he r(le, that there is no in"ringe)ent in the (se o" a 42(nior (ser o" the registered )ar* onthe entirel di""erent goods, has 'een )odi"ied ' Section 1$5.1 6"7 o" RA 8$95 6Intellect(al

Pro!ert code7. 0s (se is !recl(ded hen that the )ar* is ell *non internationall and in the

Phili!!ines, the (se o" the )ar* o(ld indicate a connection or relationshi! 'eteen the (ser andthe registrant, and that the interests o" the ell *non )ar* are li*el to 'e da)aged. 3he co(rt

hoe#er cannot resol#e the )erits considering the "acts as to the existencea'sence o" the

re/(isites sho(ld 'e addressed in a "(ll 'lon hearing and not on a )ere !reli)inar hearing.

Re!('lic o" the Phili!!ines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRS3 DIISI;to the )otion "or !reli)inar hearing and a )otion

to /(ash the s('!oena ad testificandum.

In an ;rder dated ;cto'er $>, $+++, the trial co(rt /(ashed the s('!oena ad testificandumand

denied !etitionerGs )otion "or !reli)inar hearing on a""ir)ati#e de"enses ith )otion to

dis)iss.8

ith the denial o" the )otion "or reconsideration on March 1&, $++1, !etitioner "iled a !etition

"or certiorari ith the Co(rt o" A!!eals contending that the trial co(rt gra#el a'(sed its

discretion in iss(ing the ;cto'er $>, $+++ and March 1&, $++1 orders.

;n


3/7

30 0;


4/7

Si)!l !(t, the iss(es are as "ollos 617 hether the trial co(rt denied not onl !etitionerGs

)otion "or !reli)inar hearing on its a""ir)ati#e de"enses '(t its )otion to dis)iss as ell- 6$7 i"

the anser is in the a""ir)ati#e, hether or not the trial co(rt gra#el a'(sed its discretion indening said )otions- and 657 hether the trial co(rt gra#el a'(sed its discretion in /(ashing

the s('!oena ad testificandumiss(ed against Att. Ancheta.

Anent the "irst iss(e, e "ind that hat as denied in the order dated ;cto'er $>, $+++ as not

onl the )otion "or !reli)inar hearing '(t the )otion to dis)iss as ell. A reading o" thedis!ositi#e !ortion o" said order shos that the trial co(rt neither /(ali"ied its denial nor held in

a'eance the r(ling on !etitionerGs )otion to dis)iss th(s

I< I ;F 30 F;R?;I


5/7

Hnder the old 3rade)ar* La1=here the goods "or hich the identical )ar*s are (sed are

(nrelated, there can 'e no li*elihood o" con"(sion and there is there"ore no in"ringe)ent in the

(se ' the 2(nior (ser o" the registered )ar* on the entirel di""erent goods.1&3his r(ling,hoe#er, has 'een to so)e extent, )odi"ied ' Section 1$5.16"7 o" the Intellect(al Pro!ert Code

6Re!('lic Act


6/7

6l7 the !resence o" a'sence o" identical or si)ilar )ar*s #alidl registered

"or or (sed on identical or si)ilar goods or ser#ices and oned ' !ersons

other than the !erson clai)ing that his )ar* is a ell*non )ar*.

$. 3he (se o" the ell*non )ar* on the entirel (nrelated goods or ser#ices

o(ld indicate a connection 'eteen s(ch (nrelated goods or ser#ices and thosegoods or ser#ices s!eci"ied in the certi"icate o" registration in the ell *non

)ar*. 3his re/(ire)ent re"ers to the li*elihood o" con"(sion o" origin or '(sinessor so)e '(siness connection or relationshi! 'eteen the registrant and the (ser o"

the )ar*.

5. 3he interests o" the oner o" the ell*non )ar* are li*el to 'e da)aged.For instance, i" the registrant ill 'e !recl(ded "ro) ex!anding its '(siness to

those (nrelated good or ser#ices, or i" the interests o" the registrant o" the ell

*non )ar* ill 'e da)aged 'eca(se o" the in"erior /(alit o" the good or

ser#ices o" the (ser.18

Section 1$5.16"7 is clearl in !oint 'eca(se the M(sic Lo(nge o" !etitioner is entirel (nrelated

to res!ondentsG '(siness in#ol#ing atches, cloc*s, 'racelets, etc. 0oe#er, the Co(rt cannot et

resol#e the )erits o" the !resent contro#ers considering that the re/(isites "or the a!!lication o"

Section 1$5.16"7, hich constit(te the *ernel iss(e at 'ar, clearl re/(ire deter)ination "acts o"hich need to 'e resol#ed at the trial co(rt. 3he existence or a'sence o" these re/(isites sho(ld

'e addressed in a "(ll 'lon hearing and not on a )ere !reli)inar hearing. 3he res!ondent )(st

'e gi#en a)!le o!!ort(nit to !ro#e its clai), and the !etitioner to de'(n* the sa)e.

3he sa)e is tr(e ith res!ect to the iss(e o" hether Att. Alono Ancheta as !ro!erl

a(thoried to sign the #eri"ication and certi"ication against "or() sho!!ing in 'ehal" o"

res!ondents. 3his co(ld 'e !ro!erl resol#ed d(ring the trial together ith the s('stanti#e iss(esraised ' !etitioner.

Considering that the trial co(rt correctl denied !etitionerGs )otion "or !reli)inar hearing on its

a""ir)ati#e de"enses ith )otion to dis)iss, there exists no reason to co)!el Att. Ancheta to

testi". 0ence, no a'(se o" discretion as co))itted ' the trial co(rt in /(ashing the s('!oena

ad testificandumiss(ed against Att. Ancheta.

?ra#e a'(se o" discretion i)!lies s(ch ca!ricio(s and hi)sical exercise o" 2(dg)ent as

e/(i#alent to lac* o" 2(risdiction, or, in other ords, here the !oer is exercised in an ar'itrar

or des!otic )anner ' reason o" !assion or !ersonal hostilit, and it )(st 'e so !atent and gross

as to a)o(nt to an e#asion o" !ositi#e d(t or to a #irt(al re"(sal to !er"or) the d(t en2oined orto act at all in conte)!lation o" la.


7/7

$Rollo, !. &1.

5Doc*eted as Ci#il Case $, Rollo, !. &$.

%Anser, Rollo, !!. 158159- See also !!. 15%15>.

=Rollo, !. 1%>.

&Petition, Rollo, !. 1+.

>Rollo, !. 1>+.

8Rollo, !. $1%.

9Petition, !!. 1>19.

1+

&p. cit., note 8.

11'd.

1$(pouses )ic*y +an +oh v. (olid Ban* Corporation, ?.R. A(g(st

$++5.

15?.R. 55, 1> Fe'r(ar 1995, $19 SCRA &9.

1%M(nici!alit o" inan Lag(na, s(!ra, !!. >=>&.

1=

Re!('lic Act +.

Documents

14. 246 Corp vs Daway - Digest