No. L-30266. June 29, 1984

FACTS:

Converse Rubber Corporation and  Edwardson Manufacturing Corporation sued Universal Rubber for unfair competition with damages and attorney’s fees before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The private respondents requested for the  issuance of a subpoena duces tecum against the treasurer of Universal Rubber which was granted. 

Universal Rubber filed a motion in the court below praying that the subpoena duces tecum be quashed on the grounds that the said subpoena is both unreasonable and oppressive as (a) there is no good cause shown for the issuance thereof and (b) the question of liability should be determined first before discovery by means of a subpoena duces tecum is allowed. It also assails that private respondent is a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines and that respondent Edwardson is merely its licensee; that respondent Converse has no goodwill to speak of and that it has no registrable right over its own name.

No. L-19297. December 22, 1966.

FACTS:

Petra Hawpia & Co., a partnership duly organized under the laws of the Philippines filed a petition for the registration of the trademark “LIONPAS” used on medicated plaster, with the Philippine Patent Office, asserting its continuous use in the Philippines since June 9, 1958. The Marvex Commercial Co., Inc. filed an opposition thereto, alleging that the registration of such trademark would violate its right to and interest in the trademark “SALONPAS” used on another medicated plaster and that both trademarks when used on medicated plaster would mislead the public as they are confusingly similar.

The Director of Patents in his decision gave due course to the petition, stating in part that “confusion, mistake, or deception among the purchasers will not likely and reasonably occur. 

The Marvex Commercial argued that the application be rejected on the ground that (a) the applicant is not the owner of the trademark “LIONPAS” and (b) “LIONPAS” confusingly similar to the trademark “SALONPAS”. 

Nos. L-63796-97. May 21, 1984

FACTS:

La Chemise Lacoste, S.A., a well known European manufacturer of clothings and sporting apparels sold in the international market and bearing the trademarks “LACOSTE”, “CHEMISE LACOSTE”, “CROCODILE DEVICE” and a composite mark consisting of the word “LACOSTE” and a representation of a crocodile/alligator. 

In 1975, Hemandas & Co., a duly licensed domestic firm applied for and was issued the Supplemental Register of the trademark “CHEMISE LACOSTE & CROCODILE DEVICE” by the Philippine Patent Office for use on T-shirts, sportswear and other garment products of the company. Thereafter, it assigned to Gobindram Hemandas all rights, title, and interest in the trademark. 

In 1980, La Chemise filed its application for registration of the trademark “Crocodile Device” (Application Serial No. 43242) and “Lacoste” (Application Serial No. 43241).  La Chemise filed with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) a letter-complaint alleging therein the acts of unfair competition being committed by Hemandas and requesting their assistance in his apprehension and prosecution. The NBI filed with the trial court two applications for the issuance of search warrants which would authorize the search of the premises used and occupied by the Lacoste Sports Center and Games and Garments both owned and operated by Hemandas.

G.R. No. 169156. February 15, 2007.

FACTS: 

Inspector Macatlang of the Philippine National Police applied for eight search warrants for copyright and trademark infringement after a complaint was received from Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. (SCEI). After the Search Warrants were issued by Manila Regional Trial Court, a raid was conducted on the premises of Bright Future Technologies, Inc. (BFTI).

BFTI filed an Urgent Motion to Quash and/or to Exclude or Suppress Evidence and Return Seized Articles, alleging that (a) The searching team entered the premises and conducted the search without any witness in violation of the Rules of Court; (b) SCEI had no personality to represent the People of the Philippines in the case and to file the opposition to the motion because SCEI’s agents were mere witnesses of the applicant for the issuance of the search warrants (c) the use of bolt cutter to enter into the premises is unnecessary thus violative of  Section 7 of Rule 126