Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 121 views

    Bbbbab

    Uploaded by

    Eugene Labella
    Leviton Manufacturing Co. (LM), a New York corporation, filed an unfair competition complaint against Leviton Industries (LI), a Philippine partnership. LM failed to allege in its complaint that it had the capacity to sue under Section 2-A of the Intellectual Property Code. LI filed a motion to dismiss on this basis. The lower court denied the motion. The Supreme Court held that LM failed to establish its capacity to sue under Section 21-A of the Code, which requires a foreign corporation to either have a registered trademark in the Philippines or be an assignee of such, and for the foreign corporation's home country to grant reciprocal treatment to Philippine entities. As LM did not meet

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bbbbab

    Uploaded by

    Eugene Labella
    121 views1 page
    Leviton Manufacturing Co. (LM), a New York corporation, filed an unfair competition complaint against Leviton Industries (LI), a Philippine partnership. LM failed to allege in its complaint that it had the capacity to sue under Section 2-A of the Intellectual Property Code. LI filed a motion to dismiss on this basis. The lower court denied the motion. The Supreme Court held that LM failed to establish its capacity to sue under Section 21-A of the Code, which requires a foreign corporation to either have a registered trademark in the Philippines or be an assignee of such, and for the foreign corporation's home country to grant reciprocal treatment to Philippine entities. As LM did not meet

    Original Description:

    fds

    Original Title

    bbbbab

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Leviton Manufacturing Co. (LM), a New York corporation, filed an unfair competition complaint against Leviton Industries (LI), a Philippine partnership. LM failed to allege in its complaint that it had the capacity to sue under Section 2-A of the Intellectual Property Code. LI filed a motion to dismiss on this basis. The lower court denied the motion. The Supreme Court held that LM failed to establish its capacity to sue under Section 21-A of the Code, which requires a foreign corporation to either have a registered trademark in the Philippines or be an assignee of such, and for the foreign corporation's home country to grant reciprocal treatment to Philippine entities. As LM did not meet

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    121 views1 page

    Bbbbab

    Uploaded by

    Eugene Labella
    Leviton Manufacturing Co. (LM), a New York corporation, filed an unfair competition complaint against Leviton Industries (LI), a Philippine partnership. LM failed to allege in its complaint that it had the capacity to sue under Section 2-A of the Intellectual Property Code. LI filed a motion to dismiss on this basis. The lower court denied the motion. The Supreme Court held that LM failed to establish its capacity to sue under Section 21-A of the Code, which requires a foreign corporation to either have a registered trademark in the Philippines or be an assignee of such, and for the foreign corporation's home country to grant reciprocal treatment to Philippine entities. As LM did not meet

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    162. Leviton Industries v. Hon. Serafin Salvador and Leviton Manufacturing Co.

    GR No. L-40163, June 19, 1982

    FACTS

     On April 17, 1973, Leviton Manuacturing (LM) filed a complaint for unfair competition aagainst Leviton industries
    (LI). (important fact: in LM’s complaint, it failed to allege the authority on which it has the capacity to sue)

     LM is a foreign corporation under laws of New York and that LI is a partnership organized here in the Philippines.

     LM founded in 1906 by Isidor Leviton, is the largest manufacturer of electrical wiring devices in the United States
    under the trademark Leviton, which various electrical wiring devices bearing the trademark Leviton and trade name
    Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. had been exported to the Philippines since 1954.

     LI began manufacturing and selling electrical ballast, fuse and oval buzzer under the trademark Leviton and trade
    name Leviton Industries Co and its generaal manager Domingo Go registered with the Philippine Patent Office the
    trademarks “Leviton Label” and “Leviton” with respect to ballast and fuse.

     LI also copied the design used by LM in distinguishing its traddemark, thereby causing confusion in the midns of the
    consumers

     LI fled a motion to dismiss stating that LM failed to allege its capacity to sue under Sec. 2-A of RA No. 166.

     Lower court denied motion.

    ISSUE WON LM has the capacity to sue in the Philippines even though it is not registered as a corporation therein

    HELD No. LM failed to allege the essential facts bearing upon its capacity to sue in the Philippine Courts.

    According to Sec. 21-A of RA No. 166:

    Sec. 21-A. Any foreign corporation or juristic person to which a mark or tradename has been registered or assigned
    under this Act may bring an action hereunder for infringement, for unfair competition, or false designation of origin and
    false description, whether or not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines under Act numbered Fourteen
    Hundred and Fifty-Nine, as amended, otherwise known as the Corporation Law, at the time it brings the complaint;
    Provided, That the country of which the said foreign corporation or juristic person is a citizen, or in which it is domiciled,
    by treaty, convention or law, grants a similar privilege to corporate or juristic persons of the Philippines. (As amended by
    R.A. No. 638).

    LM ,should have complied with the following (REFER TO THE DOCTRINE) in order to have been granted capacity to sue in
    the Philippine courts:

    DOCTRINE

    1.The registration of the trademark of the suing foreign corporation with the Philippine Patent Office or, in the least,
    that it be an asignee of such registered trademark.

    2. The country, of which the plaintiff foreign corporation or juristic person is a citizen or domicilliary, grants to Filipino
    corporations or juristic entities the same reciprocal treatment, either through treaty, convention or law.

    All that is alleged in private respondent's complaint is that it is a foreign corporation. Such bare averment not only fails
    to comply with the requirements imposed by the aforesaid Section 21-A but violates as well the directive of Section 4,
    Rule 8 of the Rules of Court that "facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to
    sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a
    party, must be averred.

    You might also like