William Yao vs People of the Philippines

GR No. 168306, June 19, 2007

Facts:
Petitioners are incorporators and officers of MASAGANA GAS
CORPORATION (MASAGANA), an entity engaged in the refilling, sale and distribution
of
LPG
products.
Private
respondents Petron Corporation
(Petron)
and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Pilipinas Shell) are two of the largest
bulk suppliers and producers of LPG in the Philippines. Their LPG products are sold
under the marks GASUL and SHELLANE, respectively. Both are sole entity in the
Philippines authorized to allow refillers and distributors to refill, reuse, sell and
distribute GASUL and SHELLANE LPG containers and products. MASAGANA was
charged with violation of Section 155 in relation to Section 170 of Intellectual
Property Law for infringement of trademark. But they contended that the search
warrants issued by the court was without probable cause and thus they should not
be found liable for violation thereto.
Issue:
WON there was probable cause for the issuance of Search Warrant for
infringing Petron and Shells trademark?
Held:
Yes. From the
testimonial, documentary and object evidence is
that Oblanca and Alajar have personal knowledge of the fact that petitioners,
through MASAGANA, have been using the LPG cylinders bearing the marks GASUL
and SHELLANE without permission from Petron and Pilipinas Shell, a probable
cause for trademark infringement. Both Oblanca and Alajar were clear and
insistent that they were the very same persons who monitored the activities of
MASAGANA; that they conducted test-buys thereon; and that in order to avoid
suspicion, they used different names during the test-buys. They also personally
witnessed the refilling of LPG cylinders bearing the marks GASUL and SHELLANE
inside the MASAGANA refilling plant station and the deliveries of these refilled
containers to some outlets using mini-trucks.
Indeed, the aforesaid facts and circumstances are sufficient to establish probable
cause. It should be borne in mind that the determination of probable cause does not
call for the application of the rules and standards of proof that a judgment of
conviction requires after trial on the merits. As the term implies, probable cause is
concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The standards of
judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a
judge after a full blown trial.

Gemma Ong vs People of the Philippines

GR No. 169440, November 23, 2011
Facts:
Petitioner was charged with infringement of trademark for
Distributing, selling and offering for sale of counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes without
seeking the permit and authority to manufacture and distribute the same from the
registered owner and proprietor of Marlboro Trademark. Petitioner raises the
defense of mistaken identity. That she is Gemma Catacutan and not Gemma Ong,
the accused in this case and that she should not be held liable for trademark
infringement.
Issue:

WON the defense is tenable so as to exculpate petitioner from liability?

Held:
No. The prosecution was able to establish that the trademark
Marlboro was not only valid for being neither generic nor descriptive, it was also
exclusively owned by PMPI, as evidenced by the certificates of registration issued by
the Intellectual Property Office of the Department of Trade and Industry.
Furthermore, Positive identification of a culprit is of great weight in
determining whether an accused is guilty or not. Gemma, in claiming the defense of
mistaken identity, is in reality denying her involvement in the crime. This Court has
held that the defense of denial is insipid and weak as it is easy to fabricate and
difficult to prove; thus, it cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the
offended party. The defense of denial is unavailing when placed astride the
undisputed fact that there was positive identification of the accused.

Republic Gas Corporation vs Petron Cororation

GR No. 194062, June 17 2013
Fcats:
Petitioner Republic Gas Corporation (REGASCO) was charged with
trademark infringement for engaging in the refilling and sale of LPG cylinders
bearing the registered marks of respondents without authority from the latter.
However the prosecutor, which was affirmed by the Sec. of justice, dismissed the
case for insufficiency of evidence and that there was no probable cause. Hence no
trademark infringement.
Issue:

WON there was trademark infringement?

Held:
Yes. The mere unauthorized use of a container bearing a registered
trademark in connection with the sale, distribution or advertising of goods or
services which is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception among the buyers
or consumers can be considered as trademark infringement.
The court pointed out that the consumers may be misled into believing that
the LPGs contained in the cylinders bearing the marks "GASUL" and "SHELLANE" are
those goods or products of the petitioners when, in fact, they are not. Obviously, the
mere use of those LPG cylinders bearing the trademarks "GASUL" and "SHELLANE"
will give the LPGs sold by REGASCO the general appearance of the products of the
petitioners.

Century Chinese Medicine Co. vs People of the Philippines

GR No. 188526, November 11, 2013
Facts:
Respondent is the sole distributor and registered trademark owner of
TOP GEL T.G. & DEVICE OF A LEAF papaya whitening soap. On the basis of a search
warrant petitioners are charged with trademark infringement for selling counterfeit
whitening papaya soaps bearing the general appearance of respondents products.
However a motion to quash the search warrants was filed by petitioners on the
ground of prejudicial question on the determination of rightful holder of the
trademark in question in this case. The RTC granted the motion. But the CA
reversed the RTCs decision. Hence this present petition.
Issue:
WON there was probable cause for the issuance of search warrants for
trademark infringement?
Held:
Yes. It bears stressing that the basis for the applications for issuances
of the search warrants on grounds of trademark infringement and unfair
competition is the trademark TOP GEL T.G. & DEVICE OF A LEAF. Private
complainant-appellant was issued a Certificate of Registration No. 4-2000-009881 of
said trademark on August 24, 2003 by the Intellectual Property Office, and is thus
considered the lawful holder of the said trademark. Being the registrant and the
holder of the same, private complainant-appellant had the authority to enforce and
protect her intellectual property rights over it. This prompted her to request for
assistance from the agents of the NBI, who thereafter conducted a series of
investigation, test buys and inspection regarding the alleged trademark
infringement by herein respondents-appellees.
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the requisites for the issuance of the search
warrants had been complied with and that there is probable cause to believe that
an offense had been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the
offense were in the places to be searched. The offense pertains to the alleged
violations committed by respondents-appellees upon the intellectual property rights
of herein private complainant-appellant, as holder of the trademark TOP GEL T.G. &
DEVICE OF A LEAF under Certificate of Registration No. 4-2000-009881, issued on
August 24, 2003 by the Intellectual Property Office

Coca Cola vs Gomez and Galicia

GR No. 154491, November 14 2008
Facts:
By virtue of a search warrants, respondents herein were charged with
unfair competition for allegedly hoarding in its premises empty bottles which
belongs to petitioners herein. The RTC however voided the warrant for lack of
probable cause an the non-commission of the crime of unfair competition. Hence
this petition.
Issue:
WON the hoarding of a competitors product containers is punishable
as unfair competition under the IPL?
Held:
No. the court concludes that the hoarding - as defined and charged
by the petitioner does not fall within the coverage of the IP Code and of Section
168 in particular. It does not relate to any patent, trademark, trade name or service
mark that the respondents have invaded, intruded into or used without proper
authority from the petitioner. Nor are the respondents alleged to be fraudulently
passing off their products or services as those of the petitioner. The respondents
are not also alleged to be undertaking any representation or misrepresentation that
would confuse or tend to confuse the goods of the petitioner with those of the
respondents, or vice versa. What in fact the petitioner alleges is an act foreign to
the Code, to the concepts it embodies and to the acts it regulates; as alleged,
hoarding inflicts unfairness by seeking to limit the oppositions sales by depriving it
of the bottles it can use for these sales.