—
### Facts:
1. **Initial Application and Discovery:**
– On June 2, 1997, In-N-Out Burger, Inc. (Petitioner), a California-based company, filed trademark and service mark applications in the Philippines for “IN-N-OUT” and “IN-N-OUT Burger & Arrow Design.”
– By May 31, 2000, the Philippine Intellectual Property Office (IPO) informed the petitioner that Sehwani, Inc. (respondent) already had Trademark Registration No. 56666 for “IN N OUT (the inside of the letter “O” formed like a star).”
2. **Administrative Complaint:**
– On June 4, 2001, petitioner filed an administrative complaint before the IPO’s Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) against the respondent for unfair competition and cancellation of trademark registration, asserting that their marks are internationally well-known and respondents’ marks are confusingly similar.
3. **Demand Letter and Refusal:**
– Petitioner sent a demand letter on October 18, 2000, asking respondents to cease using the disputed mark and to deregister it. Respondents refused but offered to sell the registration rights.
4. **IPO Director of Legal Affairs Decision (2003):**
– On December 22, 2003, IPO Director of Legal Affairs ruled in favor of the petitioner, canceling respondents’ trademark registration but found respondents not guilty of unfair competition.
5. **Motions for Reconsideration:**
– Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied on October 28, 2004, and April 25, 2005.
6. **Appeals:**
– Respondents filed an appeal with IPO Director General which was dismissed for tardiness.
– They elevated it to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 88004), which upheld the dismissal.
7. **Second Appeal by Petitioner:**
– Petitioner timely appealed the non-awarding of damages to the IPO Director General, who ruled in favor of the petitioner on December 23, 2005, declaring respondents guilty of unfair competition and awarding damages.
8. **Respondents’ Second Appeal (CA-G.R SP No. 92785):**
– Respondents filed another appeal to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the IPO Director General’s decision on jurisdictional grounds on July 18, 2006.
9. **Petition to the Supreme Court:**
– Dissatisfied, petitioner brought the case to the Supreme Court under G.R. No. 179127.
—
### Issues:
1. **Jurisdiction of the IPO over unfair competition cases:**
– Whether the IPO Director of Legal Affairs and the IPO Director General have jurisdiction over cases of unfair competition.
2. **Procedural Issues:**
– Whether the petition before the Supreme Court was formally defective.
– Whether respondents engaged in forum shopping.
3. **Substantive Issues:**
– Whether Sehwani, Inc., and Benita’s Frites, Inc. are guilty of unfair competition.
—
### Court’s Decision:
1. **Jurisdiction:**
– The Supreme Court ruled that the IPO Director of Legal Affairs and the IPO Director General have jurisdiction over administrative complaints for intellectual property rights violations including unfair competition. Sections 10 and 160 of the Intellectual Property Code grant the IPO jurisdiction alongside regular courts.
2. **Petition’s Formal Defects:**
– The Supreme Court excused the procedural flaws, such as the faulty notarization of the Secretary’s Certificate, considering the petitioner’s substantial compliance and the merits of the case.
3. **Forum Shopping:**
– The Court concluded that there was no forum shopping since different substantial issues were raised in the two separate petitions filed by the respondents.
4. **Unfair Competition:**
– The Supreme Court affirmed the IPO Director General’s finding that respondents were guilty of unfair competition. The respondents used petitioners’ internationally well-known marks and created confusing similarity aimed at deceiving consumers.
– The Court reinstated the IPO Director General’s decision, reducing the exemplary damages awarded to P250,000 from P500,000.
—
### Doctrine:
– **Doctrine of conclusive judgment**: Matters finally adjudicated by a competent court cannot be re-litigated between the same parties.
– **Jurisdiction**: The IPO has jurisdiction over administrative complaints and can resolve issues of unfair competition along with regular courts.
—
### Class Notes:
– **Key Concepts in Intellectual Property Law:**
– Jurisdiction of IPO in resolving IP disputes.
– Elements of unfair competition: confusing similarity and intent to deceive.
– Administrative Penalties and Remedies: IP code remedies include damages, exemplary damages, seizure of goods, and legal compliance.
– **Legal Provisions:**
– **Section 10, IPO Jurisdiction**: Confers the IPO authority to handle IP violations.
– **Section 163, Intellectual Property Code**: Jurisdictional clauses denoting authority over specific IP cases but does not exclude administrative bodies.
– **Section 156, Remedies**: Specifies damages applicable for IP rights violations.
—
### Historical Background:
This case underscores the complexities in the protection of intellectual property rights in an increasingly globalized market. The involvement of multinational identities requires intersecting jurisdictional competencies and highlights the robustness of IP law needed to mediate cross-border disputes equitably and effectively.
Leave a Reply