Upload
christianne-dondoyano
View
260
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
1/22
3.b. Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Baguio City
SECOND DIVISION
SUPERIOR COERCI!"
EN#ERPRISES$ INC%$
Petitioner,
- versus -
&UNN!N EN#ERPRISES "#D%
!ND SPOR#S CONCEP# '
DIS#RIBU#OR$ INC%$
Respondents. -- -
(%R% No% )*++,-
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD, and
PEREZ,JJ.
Prou!"ated:
Apri! #$, #$%$
./////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////.
D E C I S I O N
BRION$J%0
&e revie' in t(is petition )or revie' on certiorari*%+t(e %deision*#+o) t(e
Court o) Appea!s CA in CA-/.R. C0 No. 1$222 t(at reversed t(e ru!in" o) t(e
Re"iona! Tria! Court o) 3ue4on Cit5, Bran( 67 RTC,*8+and disissed t(e
petitioner Superior Coeria! Enterprises, In.s SUPERIOR op!aint )or
tradear9 in)rin"eent and un)air opetition 'it( pra5er )or pre!iinar5
inuntion a"ainst t(e respondents ;unnan Enterprises Ltd. KUNNAN and
Sports Conept and Distri+t(at denied S?PERIORs suin)rin"eent and un)air opetition, and ordered t(e to pa5
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn17/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
2/22
S?PERIOR P#,$$$,$$$.$$ in daa"es,P7$$,$$$.$$ as attorne5s )ees, and osts o)
t(e suit.
#1E 2!C#U!" !N#ECEDEN#S
On e
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
3/22
ountries, and 'ide!5 prooted t(e ;ENNE and PRO ;ENNE tradear9s
t(rou"( 'or!d'ide advertiseents in print edia and sponsors(ips o) 9no'n
tennis p!a5ers.
On Oto
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
4/22
1. &it(out ;?NNANs perission, t(e Superior annot proure ot(er "oods
supp!5 under ;ENNE
avai!a
Even t(ou"( t(is A"reeent !ear!5 stated t(at S?PERIOR 'as o
S?PERIOR
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
5/22
7. Superior a"rees t(at a)ter t(e assi"nent o) t(e a%$# Conso"idated
Petitions for Cance""ation invo!vin" t(e ;ENNE and PRO ;ENNE
tradear9s.*#$+In essene, ;?NNAN )i!ed t(e Petition )or Cane!!ation and
Opposition on t(e "round t(at S?PERIOR )raudu!ent!5 re"istered and appropriatedt(e disputed tradear9s= as ere distri
'it( S?PERIOR, ;?NNAN appointed SPORTS CONCEPT as its ne'
distri
o'ner o) t(e disputed tradear9s= # it terinated its Distri
pre!iinar5 inuntion enoinin" ;?NNAN and SPORTS CONCEPT )ro usin"
t(e disputed tradear9s.
T(e RTC )ound t(at S?PERIOR su))iient!5 proved t(at it 'as t(e )irst user
and o'ner o) t(e disputed tradear9s in t(e P(i!ippines,
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
6/22
t(e Diretor o) Patents in Inter Partes Case No. %2$ and %28> t(at S?PERIOR
'as ri"(t)u!!5 entit!ed to re"ister t(e ar9 ;ENNE as user and o'ner t(ereo). It
a!so onsidered t(e &(ereas !ause o) t(e Distri+
;?NNAN and SPORTS CONCEPT appea!ed t(e RTCs deision to t(e CA '(ere
t(e appea! 'as do9eted as CA-/.R. C0 No. 1$222. ;?NNAN aintained
t(atS?PERIOR 'as ere!5 its distri
in t(e ase o) Crisanta J. /a$1, a ere
distri
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
7/22
6>711, !i9e'ise )or t(e re"istration o) t(e ar9 PRO-;ENNE are
(ere
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
8/22
T(e CA stressed t(at S?PERIORs possession o) t(e a)oreentioned Certi)iates o)
Prinipa! Re"istration does not on!usive!5 esta
re
to t(e CA, !ear!5 esta
disputed tradear9s.
!irst, t(e CA )ound t(at t(e Distri
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
9/22
Second, t(e CA a!so noted t(at S?PERIOR ade t(e epress underta9in" in
t(e Assi"nent A"reeent to a9no'!ed"e t(atKUNNAN is sti"" the rea" and
truthfu" o*ner of the PRO KENNE+- trademars, and t(at it s(a!! a"ree t(at it
'i!! not use the ri&ht of the a%o)ementioned trademars to do an#thin& *hich is
unfa)oura%"e or harmfu" to KUNNAN. To t(e CA, t(ese provisions are !ear!5inonsistent 'it( S?PERIORs !ai o) o'ners(ip o) t(e disputed tradear9s. T(e
CA a!so o
I.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn357/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
10/22
&GETGER OR NOT TGE CO?RT O APPEALS ERRED IN
GOLDIN/ TGAT PETITIONER S?PERIOR IS NOT TGE TR?E
AND RI/GT?L O&NER O TGE TRADEHAR;S ;ENNE
AND PRO-;ENNE IN TGE PGILIPPINES
II.
&GETGER OR NOT TGE GONORABLE CO?RT O APPEALS
ERRED IN GOLDIN/ TGAT PETITIONER S?PERIOR IS A
HERE DISTRIB?TOR O RESPONDENT ;?NNAN IN
TGE PGILIPPINES
III.
&GETGER OR NOT TGE GONORABLE CO?RT O APPEALSERRED IN RE0ERSIN/ AND SETTIN/ ASIDE TGE DECISION
O TGE RE/IONAL TRIAL CO?RT O 3?EZON CITJ IN CI0IL
CASE NO. 3-8-%>666, LITIN/ TGE PRELIHINARJ
IN?NCTION ISS?ED A/AINST RESPONDENTS ;?NNAN
AND SPORTS CONCEPT AND DISHISSIN/ TGE COHPLAINT
OR INRIN/EHENT O TRADEHAR; AND ?NAIR
COHPETITION &ITG PRELIHINARJ IN?NCTION
#1E COUR#S RU"IN(
:e 3o not fin3 the petition meritorious%
On the Issue of Trademark Infringement
&e )irst onsider t(e e))et o) t(e )ina! and eeutor5 deision in t(e Re"istration
Cane!!ation Case on t(e present ase. T(is deision - rendered after t(e CA
deision )or tradear9 in)rin"eent and un)air opetition in CA-/.R. C0 No.
1$222 root o) t(e present ase - states:As to '(et(er respondent ;unnan 'as a
o) o'ners(ip in )avor o) Superior, t(e )orer su))iient!5 esta
)raudu!ent re"istration o) t(e @uestioned tradear9s 62 Prinipa!
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
11/22
Re"ister )or t(e ;ENNE tradear9 'ere )raudu!ent!5 o
tradear9s in t(e P(i!ippines. T(us, ;unnan 'as is!ed into assi"nin"to Superior its ;unnans o'n app!iation )or t(e disputed tradear9s. In t(e
sae assi"nent douent, (o'ever. Superior 'as
app!ia
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn367/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
12/22
connection *ith'(i( su( use is !i9e!5 to ause on)usion or ista9e or to
deeive pur(asers or ot(ers as tot(e soure or ori"in o) su( "oods or servies,
or identit5 o) su( op5, or o!ora
appea! is ta9en, unti! t(e ud"ent on appea!
T(us, 'e (ave previous!5 (e!d t(at t(e ane!!ation o) re"istration o) a
tradear9 (as t(e e))et o) deprivin" t(e re"istrant o) protetion )ro in)rin"eent
)ro t(e oent ud"ent or order o) ane!!ation (as
in)rin"eent !ost its !e"a!
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
13/22
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
14/22
partiu!ar )ats or issues in anot(er !iti"ation
e!eent t(e p!ainti))s o'ners(ip o) t(e ar9 'as '(at t(e Re"istration
Cane!!ation Case deided 'it( )ina!it5. On t(is e!eent depended t(e va!idit5 o)
t(e re"istrations t(at, on t(eir o'n, on!5 "ave rise to t(e presuption o), 7+
In no unertain ters, the appellate court in the Registration Cancellation
Case rule3 that SUPERIOR 5as a mere 3istributor an3 coul3 not ha;e been
the o5ner$ an3 5as thus an in;ali3 registrant of the 3ispute3
tra3emar7s%Si"ni)iant!5, t(ese are t(e eat ters o) t(e ru!in" t(e CA arrived at
in t(e present petition no' under our revie'. T(us, '(et(er 'it( one or t(e ot(er,
t(e ru!in" on t(e issue o) o'ners(ip o) t(e tradear9s is t(e sae. /iven, (o'ever,
t(e )ina! and eeutor5 ru!in" in t(e Re"istration Cane!!ation Case on t(e issue o)
o'ners(ip t(at
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
15/22
Our revie' o) t(e reords s(o's t(at t(e neit(er t(e RTC nor t(e CA ade
an5 )atua! )indin"s 'it( respet to t(e issue o) un)air opetition. In its
Cop!aint,S?PERIOR a!!e"ed t(at:*>1+
%2. In anuar5 %8, t(e p!ainti)) !earned t(at t(e de)endant ;unnan Enterprises,Ltd., is intendin" to appoint t(e de)endant Sports Conept and Distri
a!!e"ed (ereina!i9e!5 to disredit t(e oeria! ativities and )uture "ro't( o) p!ainti))s
o) one person as t(e "oods or
a!u!ated to deeive t(e ordinar5
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
16/22
essentia! re@uisites in an ation to restrain un)air opetition is proo) o) )raud= t(e
intent to deeive, atua! or pro
t(e a
t(e "oods ori"inated )roS?PERIOR sine t(e notie !ear!5 indiated t(at
;?NNAN is t(e anu)aturer o) t(e "oods
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
17/22
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
18/22
Assoiate ustie
OSE POR#U(!" PEREG
Assoiate ustie
!##ES#!#ION
I attest t(at t(e on!usions in t(e a
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
19/22
REFN!#O S% PUNO
C(ie) ustie
*%+?nder Ru!e >7 o) t(e R?LES O CO?RT.*#+Dated une ##, #$$7= penned
re"istered t(e >26 dated Ha5 8%, %67 to 28$ dated Ha5 #8, %6$ to $8#1 dated
Au"ust %#, %66 )or t(e )o!!o'in" "oods: tennis ra9ets, s@uas( ra9ets, ra9et%$8# dated Septe
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
20/22
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
21/22
7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
22/22