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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 77 views

    B74 Philip Morris Inc. v. Court of Appeals, GR 91332, 16 July 1993, Third Division, Melo (J) - BAUTISTA PDF

    Uploaded by

    loschudent
    Philip Morris and two subsidiaries filed a case against Fortune Tobacco claiming trademark infringement of their registered marks "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK". However, the court ruled that actual use of a trademark in Philippine commerce is required to claim ownership. As the plaintiffs were not engaged in business in the Philippines, they could not demonstrate damage from infringement or right to protection of the marks. The court dismissed the petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals.

    Copyright:

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

    B74 Philip Morris Inc. v. Court of Appeals, GR 91332, 16 July 1993, Third Division, Melo (J) - BAUTISTA PDF

    Uploaded by

    loschudent
    77 views1 page
    Philip Morris and two subsidiaries filed a case against Fortune Tobacco claiming trademark infringement of their registered marks "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK". However, the court ruled that actual use of a trademark in Philippine commerce is required to claim ownership. As the plaintiffs were not engaged in business in the Philippines, they could not demonstrate damage from infringement or right to protection of the marks. The court dismissed the petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals.

    Original Title

    117. B74 Philip Morris Inc. v. Court of Appeals, GR 91332, 16 July 1993, Third Division, Melo [J]_BAUTISTA.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Philip Morris and two subsidiaries filed a case against Fortune Tobacco claiming trademark infringement of their registered marks "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK". However, the court ruled that actual use of a trademark in Philippine commerce is required to claim ownership. As the plaintiffs were not engaged in business in the Philippines, they could not demonstrate damage from infringement or right to protection of the marks. The court dismissed the petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals.

    Copyright:

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

    B74 Philip Morris Inc. v. Court of Appeals, GR 91332, 16 July 1993, Third Division, Melo (J) - BAUTISTA PDF

    Uploaded by

    loschudent
    Philip Morris and two subsidiaries filed a case against Fortune Tobacco claiming trademark infringement of their registered marks "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK". However, the court ruled that actual use of a trademark in Philippine commerce is required to claim ownership. As the plaintiffs were not engaged in business in the Philippines, they could not demonstrate damage from infringement or right to protection of the marks. The court dismissed the petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals.

    Copyright:

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

    B74

    Philip Morris, Inc., Benson & Hedges (Canada), Inc., and Fabriques of Tabac Reunies, S.A.,
    vs. The Court of Appeals and Fortune Tobacco Corporation
    G.R. No. 91332, Melo, July 16, 1993
    Digested by: Bautista, Lenard

    Facts:

    Philip Morris, Incorporated is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
    Virginia, USA. The two other plaintiff foreign corporations are wholly-owned subsidiaries
    of Philip Morris, Inc. As registered owners "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK" per
    certificates of registration issued by the Philippine Patent Office, plaintiffs-petitioners
    asserted that defendant Fortune Tobacco Corporation has no right to manufacture and sell
    cigarettes bearing the allegedly identical or confusingly similar trademark "MARK" in
    contravention of Section 22 of the Trademark Law.

    Private respondent Fortune Tobacco Corporation admitted petitioners' certificates of


    registration with the Philippine Patent Office. The respondent alleged that it has been
    authorized by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to manufacture and sell cigarettes bearing
    the trademark "MARK", and that "MARK" is a common word which cannot be exclusively
    appropriated. Also, the respondent pointed out that lots of workers employed will be laid
    off as a consequence of an injunction, and that the government will stand to lose P120M
    of specific taxes from January to July 1989.

    Issue: Whether or not irreparable injury should be preceded by actual use of their
    registered trademarks in commerce in the Philippines

    Held: Yes. A fundamental principle of Philippine Trademark Law is that actual use in
    commerce in the Philippines is a pre-requisite to the acquisition of ownership over a
    trademark or a tradename. In fact, a prior registrant cannot claim exclusive use of the
    trademark unless it uses it in commerce.

    In view of the explicit representation of petitioners in the complaint that they are not
    engaged in business in the Philippines, it inevitably follows that no conceivable damage
    can be suffered by them not to mention the foremost consideration heretofore discussed
    on the absence of their "right" to be protected.

    The critical facts in an infringement case are not presented. Petitioners therefore, may not
    be permitted to presume a given state of facts on their so called right to the trademarks
    which could be subjected to irreparable injury and in the process, suggest the fact of
    infringement. Such a ploy would practically place the cart ahead of the horse.

    Dispositive Portion

    The petition is hereby DISMISSED and the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated
    September 14, 1989 and November 29, 1989 are hereby AFFIRMED.

    You might also like