Category: Uncategorized


CASE 2020-0024: BRIG. GEN. MARCIAL A. COLLAO IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMANDING GENERAL HEADQUARTERS AND HEAD QUARTERS SUPPORT GROUP, PHILIPPINE ARMY VS. MOISES ALBANIA (G.R. NO. 228905, JULY 15, 2020, PERALTA, C. J.) (SUBJECT/S: UNLAWFUL DETAINER; REJOINDER OF PARTIES)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

GEN. CABUSAO FILED A COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER AGAINST ALBANIA WHO WAS LESSEE IN PROPERTY OF PHILIPPINE ARMY. METC RULED IN FAVOR OF GENERAL CABUSAO. ON APPEAL RTC DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINANT SHOULD BE PHILIPPINE ARMY BECAUSE GEN. CABUSAO DOES NOT STAND TO BE BENEFITED OR INJURED. IS RTC CORRECT?

NO. NON JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTY IS NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL. RTC SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE AMENDMENT OF THE PLEADINGS.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW:

TRADEMARK CASE 0002-04 NOV 1992: G.R. NO. 71189- FABERGE INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND CO BENG KAY, RESPONDENTS. (MELO, J.)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PETITIONER REGISTERED ITS TRADEMARK “BRUT” FOR AFTER SHAVE LOTION, SHAVING CREAM, DEODORANT, TALCUM POWER AND TOILET SOAP. LATER RESPONDENT REGISTERED ITS TRADEMARK “BRUTE” FOR BRIEFS. THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THESE MARKS ARE NOT CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR BECAUSE OF THE GLARING DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PRODUCTS OF PETITIONER AND THAT OF RESPONDENT.

 

WHAT IS THE CENTRAL RULING OF THE COURT ON THIS CASE?

 

“The glaring discrepancies between the two products had been amply portrayed to such an extent that indeed, “a purchaser who is out in the market for the purpose of buying respondent’s BRUTE brief would definitely be not mistaken or misled into buying BRUT after shave lotion or deodorant” as categorically opined in the decision of the Director of Patents relative to the inter-partes case. (supra, at page 7).”

 

PETITIONER SAID IT ALSO INTENDED TO USE ITS TRADEMARK ON “BRIEFS”. IS THIS GROUND VALID?

 

NO. ONLY THOSE PRODUCTS SPECIFIED IN THE CERTIFICATE ARE COVERED. SAID THE COURT:

 

“. . . . . . In as much as petitioner has not ventured in the production of briefs, an item which is not listed in its certificate of registration, petitioner can not and should not be allowed to feign that private respondent had invaded petitioner’s exclusive domain. To be sure, it is significant that petitioner failed to annex in its Brief the so-called “eloquent proof that petitioner indeed intended to expand its mark “BRUT” to other goods” (Page 27, Brief for the Petitioner; Page 202, Rollo). Even then, a mere application by petitioner in this aspect does not suffice and may not vest an exclusive right in its favor that can ordinarily be protected by the Trademark Law. In short, paraphrasing Section 20 of the Trademark Law as applied to the documentary evidence adduced by petitioner, the certificate of registration issued by the Director of Patents can confer upon petitioner the exclusive right to use its own symbol only to those goods specified in the certificate, subject to any conditions and limitations stated therein. . . . .”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, SEARCH THE CASE UNDER THE LAWPHIL PROJECT OF THE ARELLANO LAW FOUNDATION.

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.