J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

TRADEMARK CASE 0001: 10 JAN 1953-G.R. NO. L-4531- ANG SI HENG AND SALUSTIANA DEE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,  VS. WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE, INC., BENJAMIN CHUA, S.R. MENDINUETO, AND FELIMON COSIO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES (LABRADOR, J.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PLAINTIFFS REGISTERED FIRST THE THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON” FOR MANUFACTURING SHIRTS, PANTS, DRAWERS, AND OTHER ARTICLES OF WEAR FOR MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN. LATER, DEFENDANTS REGISTERED THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE” FOR THEIR BUSINESS. PLAINTIFFS ARGUE THAT  THE USE OF THE WORDS “WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE” AS A BUSINESS NAME AND AS A CORPORATE NAME BY THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE DECEIVES THE PUBLIC INTO BUYING DEFENDANT CORPORATION’S GOODS UNDER THE MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT THE NAMES ARE THE PLAINTIFF’S OR HAVE THE SAME SOURCE AS PLAINTIFFS’ GOODS, THEREBY RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO THEM. ON THE OTHER HAND DEFENDANTS ARGUE THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE ONLY MANUFACTURING SHIRTS, PANTS, DRAWERS AND OTHER ARTICLES OF WEAR WHILE THEY ARE SELLING HATS, SHOES,  TOYS, PERFUMES, BAGS WHICH ARE NOT MANUFACTURED OR SOLD BY PLAINTIFFS AND WHILE THEY ALSO SELL  APPARELS THESE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY PLAINTIFFS. THE SUPREME COURT RULED  IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS AND DECLARED THERE WAS  NO INFRINGEMENT.

IS THERE A SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON” AND “WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE”?

YES.

IS THERE CONFUSION OR DECEPTION?

NO, BECAUSE “WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE” IS A DEPARTMENT STORE WHILE THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON” IS NOT A DEPARTMENT STORE.

FURTHERMORE, THE NAME “WELLINGTON” IS ADMITTEDLY THE NAME OF THE TRADEMARK ON THE SHIRTS, PANTS, DRAWERS, AND OTHER ARTICLES OF WEAR FOR MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN, WHEREAS THE NAME USED BY THE DEFENDANT INDICATES NOT THESE MANUFACTURED ARTICLES OR ANY SIMILAR MERCHANDISE, BUT A DEPARTMENT STORE.

CAN THE PUBLIC BE SAID TO BE DECEIVED INTO THE BELIEF THAT THE GOODS BEING SOLD IN DEFENDANT’S STORE ORIGINATE FROM THE PLAINTIFFS?

NO  BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT DEFENDANT’S STORE SELLS NO SHIRTS OR WEAR BEARING THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON,” BUT OTHER TRADEMARKS.

FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT CUSTOMERS OF THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS HAD ACTUALLY BEEN MISLED INTO PURCHASING DEFENDANT’S ARTICLES AND MERCHANDISE.

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.

TRADEMARK-0001-ANG SI HENG ET AL VS WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE INC ET AL.doc 

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”.

OMNIBUS GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY QUARANTINE IN THE PHILIPPINES

JUST CLICK THE FILE BELOW.

OMNIBUS GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNICTY QUARANTINE

STARTING 01 JUNE 2020 METRO MANILA WILL BE PLACED UNDER GENERAL COMMUNITY QUARANTINE FROM MODIFIED ENHANCED COMMUNITY QUARANTINE. SECTION 4 OF THE OMNIBUS GUIDELINES REFER TO GENERAL COMMUNITY QUARANTINE.

CASE 2020-0012: MERIAM M. URMAZA VS. HON. REGIONAL PROCESUTOR NANNATUS CAESAR R. ROJA/HON. ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR JUDYLITO V. ULANDAY AND RAMON TORRES DOMINGO (G.R. NO. 240012. JANUARY 22, 2020) (SUBJECT/S: PROCEDURE IN APPEALING RESOLUTIONS OF THE PROVINCIAL AND CITY PROSECUTORS; ORAL DEFAMATION; INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR) (BRIEF TITLE: URMANZA VS REGIONAL PROSECUTOR ROJA ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONER FILED AT THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE A CASE FOR ORAL DEFAMATION AND INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR. THE PROSECUTOR DISMISSED THE CASES  FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. PETITIONER FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL PROSECUTOR WHO ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL. PETITIONER THEN FILED PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AT CA. CA DISMISSED PETITION FOR BEING FILED INCORRECTLY AT CA. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED AT DOJ. SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED RULING OF CA BUT STILL RULED ON THE MERITS. ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

WHAT IS THE APPEAL PROCEDURE FROM RESOLUTION OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OR CITY PROSECUTOR?

WAS CA CORRECT IN DISMISSING THE PETITION?

CA COULD HAVE GIVEN  THE PETITION DUE COURSE BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION OF THE REGIONAL PROSECUTOR IS FINAL, MEANING THE DISPUTE  CAN NOW BE RAISED  IN COURT. BUT PETITION DID NOT STATE THE DATE WHEN SHE RECEIVED COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DENYING HER MOTION FOR RECON. THUS, THE PETITION WAS STILL DEFECTIVE AND COULD BE DISMISSED. YET THE SUPREME COURT PROCEEDED TO RULE ON THE MERITS.

WHAT IS ORAL DEFAMATION AND INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR?

 WAS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CONSTITUTING PROBABLE CAUSE) TO INDICT RESPONDENT IN THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR AND ORAL DEFAMATION?

NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

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.

SCD-2020-0012-Meriam M. Urmaza Vs. Hon. Regional Procesutor Nannatus Caesar R. Roja, Hon. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Judylito V. Ulanday and Ramon Torres Domingo 

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”.