Primicias v Fugoso 80 PHIL 71 (1948)

Facts: An action was instituted by the petitioner for the refusal of the respondent to issue a permit to them to hold a public meeting in Plaza Miranda for redress of grievances to the government. The reason alleged by the respondent in his defense for refusing the permit is, "that there is a reasonable ground to believe, basing upon previous utterances and upon the fact that passions, specially on the part of the losing groups, remains bitter and high, that similar speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government, and in the duly constituted authorities, which might threaten breaches of the peace and a disruption of public order." Giving emphasis as well to the delegated police power to local government. Stating as well Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibiting as an offense against public peace, and penalizes as a misdemeanor, "any act, in any public place, meeting, or procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot; or collect with other persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or disturb or disquiet any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly." Included herein is Sec. 1119, Free use of Public Place.

Elidad Kho v Court of Appeals and Summerville General Merchandising G.R. No. 115758. March 19, 2002

Facts:

Petitioner is doing business under the name of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory and is the registered owner of copyright Chin Chun Su and Oval Facial Cream Container with a patent right on Chin Chun Su & Device and Chin Chun Su for medicated cream after purchasing the same from Quintin Cheng, a registered owner in Supplemental Register of the Philippine Patent Office. It alleges that respondent Summerville advertised and sold the petitioner’s cream products under the brand name Chin Chun Su using similar container that the petitioner used thereby misleading the public and depriving the petitioner of business sales and income. It enjoins the respondent from allegedly infringing its copyright and patent right over the same product. In defense respondent claims to be the exclusive and authorized importer, re-packer and distributor of the Chin Chun Su product manufactured by Shun Yi Factory in Taiwan authorizing Summerville to register its trade name Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream with the Philippine Patent Office. It also points out that the assignee of the patent registration certification in the Philippines, Quintin Cheng, has already been terminated by the said Taiwanese Manufacturing Company. Trial court granted the injunction in favor of the petitioner. On appeal, respondent prays for the nullification of the writ of preliminary injunction which was set aside by the Court of Appeals on the account that the registration of the trademark Chin Chun Su by KEC with the supplemental register of the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer cannot be equated with registration in the principal register duly protected by the Trademark law.

Creser Precision Systems Inc. v CA and Floro International Co. GR NO. 118708, February 2, 1998

Facts: 

Respondent was granted by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) a Letter of patent for its aerial fuze on January 23, 1990. Sometime in 1993, respondent discovered that the petitioner submitted samples of its patented aerial fuze to the AFP for testing claiming to be his own. To protect its right, respondent sent letter of warning to petitioner on a possible court action should it proceed its testing by the AFP. In response the petitioner filed a complaint for injunction and damages arising from alleged infringement before the RTC asserting that it is the true and actual inventor of the aerial fuze which it developed on 1981 under the Self Reliance Defense Posture Program of the AFP. It has been supplying the military of the aerial fuze since then and that the fuze of the respondent is similar as that of the petitioner. Petitioner prayed for restraining order and injunction from marketing, manufacturing and profiting from the said invention by the respondent. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner citing the fact that it was the first to develop the aerial fuze since 1981 thsu it concludes that it is the petitioner’s aerial fuze that was copied by the respondent. Moreover, the claim of respondent is solely based on its letter of patent which validity is being questioned. On appeal, respondent argued that the petitioner has no cause of action since he has no right to assert there being no patent issued to his aerial fuze. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court dismissing the complaint of the petitioner. It was the contention of the petitioner that it can file under Section 42 of the Patent Law an action for infringement not as a patentee but as an entity in possession of a right, title or interest to the patented invention. It theorizes that while the absence of a patent prevents one from lawfully suing another for infringement of said patent, such absence does not bar the true and actual inventor of the patented invention from suing another in the same nature as a civil action for infringement.

Pearl and Dean Inc. v Shoemart Inc. GR No. 148222, August 15, 2003

Facts:

Plaintiff P and D is engaged in manufacturing advertising display units called as light boxes. These are specialty printed posters with plastic sheets and illuminated back lights that are mainly used as stationeries. They secure copyright registration over these advertising light boxes and marketed using the trademark “poster ads.” They applied for the registration of trademark before the Bureau of Patents, Trademark and Technology Transfer which was approved on September 12, 1988. P and D negotiated with the defendant Shoemart for the lease and installation of the light boxes in SM City North Edsa but was given an alternative to have them leased to SM Makati and SM Cubao while the said branch was under construction. Only the contract with SM Makati was returned with signature. In 1986 the counsel of Shoemart informed P and D that it is rescinding its contract for SM Makati due to non-performance of the terms thereof. Two years later, the Metro Industrial Services, the same company contracted by the plaintiff to fabricate their display units offered to construct light boxes for the Shoemart chain of stores wherein 10 light boxes were created for them. Upon the termination of contract with Metro Industrial Service, SM hired EYD Rainbow Advertising Co. to make light boxes. When P and D knew about the exact copies of its light boxes installed at SM City branches in 1989, it investigated and found out that North Edsa Marketing Inc (NEMI), sister company of SM was primarily selling ad space in lighted display units. P and D sent letter to both NEMI and SM enjoining them to cease from using the subject light boxes and remove them from SM establishments. It also demanded to discontinue the use of its trademark “poster ads” with compensatory damages of 20M. SM suspended the lease of light boxes in its branches while NEMI took down its advertisement for poster ads. Claiming both failed to meet its demand P and D filed a case for infringement of trademark, copyright, unfair competition and damages.

SM denied the charges against it and noted that the registration of mark “poster ads” is limited to stationeries like letterhead and envelope. It further stresses that it independently develop its own poster panels using techniques and available technology without notice to P and D copyright. It further contends that “poster ads” is a generic name that cannot be appropriated for a trademark and that P and D’s advertising display units contained no copyright notice in violation of Section 27 of P.D. 49. NEMI likewise repleaded the averments of SM and denied to have manufactured, installed or advertised the display units. The RTC decided in favor of P and D but on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed its decision. In its judgment its stand is that the copyright of the plaintiff is limited to its technical drawings only and not the light boxes itself. When a drawing is technical, the copyright over the drawing does not extend to actual object. Thus the CA is constrained to adopt the view of the respondents that the “poster ads” is a generic poster term ads and in the absence of convincing proof that such wording acquired secondary meaning, the P and D’s exclusive right to use “poster ads” is limited to what is written on its certificate of registration which is stationaries.

Smith Kline Beckman Co. v Court of Appeals and Tryco Pharma GR No. 126627, August 14, 2003

Facts:

Petitioner Smith Kline Beckman Co., licensed to do business in the Philippines, filed on October 8, 1976 as assignee before the Bureau of Patents an application for patent on its invention called “Methods and Compositions for Producing Biphasic Parasiticide Activity Using Methyl 5 Propylthio-2-Benzimidazole Carbanate.” A Letters of Patent was issued to the petitioner on September 24, 1981 for a period of 17 years. The patent provides that the patented invention consists of Methyl 5 Propylthio-2-Benzimidazole Carbanate used as an active ingredient in treating gastrointestinal parasites and lung worms in animals. The respondent Tryco Pharma manufactures, distributes and sells veterinary product, one of which is the Impregon, a drug having Albendazole as its active ingredient effective against gastrointestinal worms in animals. Petitioner now sues the respondent for patent infringement and unfair competition before the RTC as it claims that their patent includes the substance Albendazole used by the respondent and they sold and used the drug Impregon without the petitioner’s authorization and committed unfair competition for selling as its own the drug that substantially functions to achieve the same result. Petitioner further contends that under the doctrine of equivalents in determining patent infringement, the active substance Albendazole used by the respondent is substantially the same as Methyl 5 Propylthio-2-Benzimidazole Carbanate covered by its patent with the same use of combating worm infestations in animals. It prodded the court to go beyond the literal words used in the Letter of Patent issued to them to consider that the words Methyl 5 Propylthio-2-Benzimidazole Carbanate and Albendazole are the same. Respondent avers that the Letter of Patents issued to petitioner does not cover Albendazole in that the word does not appear on it. Even if the patent were to include Albendazole it is unpatentable. They secured approval from the Bureau of Foods and Drugs to manufacture and market Impregon with the Albendazole as its active ingredients. The petitioner has no proof that they passed their veterinary products as that of the petitioner.

Francisco Joaquin vs Franklin Drilon GR No. 108946, January 28, 1999

Facts:

BJ Productions, Inc (BJPI) is a holder of a Certificate of Copyright no. M922 issued on January 28, 1971 of “Rhoda and Me” which is a dating show aired from 1970 to 1977. It submitted to the National Library an addendum its certificate of copyright specifying the show’s format and style of presentation. While watching the television, its President, Francisco Joaquin saw on RPN Channel 9 the episode on “It’s a Date” produced by IXL Productions. He wrote a letter to IXL’s president Gabriel Zosa informing him that BJPI has a copyright of the same format as shown on their “It’s a Date” show in their “Rhoda and Me” show. Zosa sought to register IXL’s copyright to their first episode of “It’s a Date” to the National Library. Petitioner filed a complaint in violation of PD No. 49 against the respondent before the RTC of Quezon City. Respondent sought a review of the resolution from the Asst. City Prosecutor before the Department of Justice.

Sec. of Justice Franklin Drilon directed to move for dismissal of the case against the respondents and denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration hence this petition before the Supreme Court.

Manly Sportswear Manufacturing Inc. v Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center GR No. 165306, September 20, 2005

Facts:

The NBI secured a search warrant on March 14, 2003 from the RTC to act upon the information that respondents were in possession of goods copyright of which belongs to the petitioner. Finding reasonable grounds in violation of Section 172 and 217 of RA 8293 a search warrant was issued. Respondents move to quash and annul the search warrant contending it is invalid and the requisites for its issuance are not complied with. They insist that the sporting goods manufactured and registered in the name MANLY is just ordinary and common and not among the classes protected under RA 8293. The court granted the motion to quash declaring the search warrant null and void because there were certificates of registrations issued earlier than MANLY for the same sporting goods under various brands thereby negating the fact that their products are copyrighted and original creations. Motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court sustaining the lower court’s decision thus this instant petition for review for certiorari.

Coffee Partners, Inc. vs. San Francisco Coffee and Roastery, Inc. G.R. No. 169504, March 3, 2010

Facts:

The petitioner holds a business in maintaining coffee shops in the Philippines. It is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission in January 2001. In its franchise agreement with Coffee Partners Ltd, it carries the trademark “San Francisco Coffee.” Respondent is engaged in the wholesale and retail sale of coffee that was registered in SEC in May 1995 under a registered business name of “San Francisco Coffee &Roastery, Inc.” It entered into a joint venture with Boyd Coffee USA to study coffee carts in malls.

When respondent learned that petitioner will open a coffee shop in Libis, Q.C. they sent a letter to the petitioner demanding them to stop using the name “San Francisco Coffee” as it causes confusion to the minds of the public. A complaint was also filed by respondents before the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office for infringement and unfair competition with claims for damages. Petitioners contend that there are distinct differences in the appearance of their trademark and that respondent abandoned the use of their trademark when it joined venture with Boyd Coffee USA. The Bureau of Legal Affairs of the IPO held that petitioner’s trademark infringed on the respondent’s trade name as it registered its business name first with the DTI in 1995 while petitioner only registered its trademark in 2001.