Scribd
Upload
13 views

Case Digest 9

Uploaded by

Yasmin Guzman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views

Case Digest 9

Uploaded by

Yasmin Guzman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

G.R. No.

115758 March 19, 2002

ELIDAD C. KHO, doing business under the name and style of KEC COSMETICS
LABORATORY, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SUMMERVILLE GENERAL MERCHANDISING and
COMPANY, and ANG TIAM CHAY, respondents.

TICKLER

This case revolves around the distinction of trademark, copyright, and patent which cannot be
interchanged with one another.

FACTS

➢ This case is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated May 24, 1993 nullifying the orders dated February 10, 1992 and
March 19, 1992 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, of Quezon City granting the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

➢ Petitioner Elidad C. Kho filed a complaint for injunction and damages with a prayer for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the respondents Summerville
General Merchandising and Company (Summerville, for brevity) and Ang Tiam Chay
dated December 20, 1991.

➢ Petitioner, doing business under the name and style of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory, is the
registered owner of the copyrights Chin Chun Su and Oval Facial Cream Container/Case
alongside the patent right on Chin Chun Su & Device and Chin Chun Su for medicated
cream after purchasing the same from Quintin Cheng, the registered owner thereof in the
Supplemental Register of the Philippine Patent Office dated February 7, 1980.

➢ The petitioner’s complaint argues that respondent Summerville advertised and sold
petitioner's cream products under the brand name Chin Chun Su using similar containers
that petitioner uses, thereby misleading the public, and resulting in the decline in the
petitioner's business sales and income; and, that the respondents should be enjoined from
allegedly infringing on the copyrights and patents of the petitioner.

➢ On the other hand, as a defense of the respondent, Summerville is the exclusive and
authorized importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun Su products manufactured by
Shun Yi Factory of Taiwan, and that KEC Cosmetics Laboratory of the petitioner
obtained the copyrights through misrepresentation and falsification. The respondent also
defended that the authority of Quintin Cheng, assignee of the patent registration
certificate, to distribute and market Chin Chun Su products in the Philippines had already
been terminated by the said Taiwanese Manufacturing Company.

ISSUE

Whether or not the copyright and patent right over the name Chin Chun Su and its Oval Facial
Cream Container would entitle the registrant to the use and ownership over the same to the
exclusion of others.

RULING

➢ In the case at bar, the petitioner applied for the issuance of a preliminary injunctive order
on the ground that she is entitled to the use of the trademark on Chin Chun Su and its
container based on her copyright and patent over the same.

➢ Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot be
interchanged with one another.

➢ A trademark is any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or


services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container
of goods. In relation thereto, a trade name means the name or designation identifying or
distinguishing an enterprise. Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined to literary
and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic
domain protected from the moment of their creation.

➢ Patentable inventions, on the other hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in
any field of human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially
applicable.

➢ Petitioner has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use of the subject trade name
and its container. The name and container of a beauty cream product are proper subjects
of a trademark inasmuch as the same falls squarely within its definition.

➢ In order to be entitled to exclusively use the same in the sale of the beauty cream
product, the user must sufficiently prove that she registered or used it before anybody else
did. The petitioner's copyright and patent registration of the name and container would
not guarantee her the right to the exclusive use of the same for the reason that they are not
appropriate subjects of the said intellectual rights.
➢ Consequently, a preliminary injunction order cannot be issued for the reason that the
petitioner has not proven that she has a clear right over the said name and container to the
exclusion of others, not having proven that she has registered a trademark thereto or used
the same before anyone did.

➢ The judgment will be affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy