0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
12 Ansichten1 Seite
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision cancelling Sehwani Inc.'s claim of ownership over the name "In-N-Out". The foreign corporation In-N-Out Burger filed a complaint against Sehwani Inc. and Benita's Frites for violating its intellectual property rights by using the name "In-N-Out" without authorization. The Bureau of Legal Affairs found In-N-Out Burger to be the owner of the well-known name and trademarks. The Court of Appeals dismissed Sehwani's appeal as it was filed out of time, making the Bureau's decision final. The Supreme Court upheld this, recognizing In-N-Out Burger's superior rights over the
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision cancelling Sehwani Inc.'s claim of ownership over the name "In-N-Out". The foreign corporation In-N-Out Burger filed a complaint against Sehwani Inc. and Benita's Frites for violating its intellectual property rights by using the name "In-N-Out" without authorization. The Bureau of Legal Affairs found In-N-Out Burger to be the owner of the well-known name and trademarks. The Court of Appeals dismissed Sehwani's appeal as it was filed out of time, making the Bureau's decision final. The Supreme Court upheld this, recognizing In-N-Out Burger's superior rights over the
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision cancelling Sehwani Inc.'s claim of ownership over the name "In-N-Out". The foreign corporation In-N-Out Burger filed a complaint against Sehwani Inc. and Benita's Frites for violating its intellectual property rights by using the name "In-N-Out" without authorization. The Bureau of Legal Affairs found In-N-Out Burger to be the owner of the well-known name and trademarks. The Court of Appeals dismissed Sehwani's appeal as it was filed out of time, making the Bureau's decision final. The Supreme Court upheld this, recognizing In-N-Out Burger's superior rights over the
007 Sehwani Inc v. In-N-Out Burgers Inc. (DAGUMAN) OUT BURGER" in its restaurant in Pasig City.
Hence, respondent filed a
October 15, 2007 | Ynares-Santiago, J. | Trademark complaint for violation of intellectual property rights. 4. petitioners alleged that respondent lack the legal capacity to sue because it was not doing business in the Philippines and that it has no cause of action PETITIONER: Sehwani Inc and/or Benita’s Frites because its mark is not registered or used in the Philippines. Petitioner RESPONDENTS: In-N-Out Burger, Inc. Sehwani, Inc. also claimed that as the registered owner of the "IN-N-OUT" mark, it enjoys the presumption that the same was validly acquired and that SUMMARY: in your own words kwento mo yung case here from its journey sa it has the exclusive right to use the mark. Moreover, petitioners argued that lower courts hanggang ruling ng SC other than the bare allegation of fraud in the registration of the mark, respondent failed to show the existence of any of the grounds for DOCTRINE: rule of law that applied and how the court applied it cancellation thereof under Section 151 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293, otherwise known as The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines 5. Bureau Director Estrellita Beltran-Abelardo rendered Decision No. 2003-02 finding that respondent has the legal capacity to sue and that it is the owner of the internationally well-known trademarks; however, she held that petitioners are not guilty of unfair competition 6. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration insisting that respondent has no legal capacity to sue, that no ground for cancellation was duly proven, and that the action is barred by laches; while respondent moved for partial reconsideration assailing the finding that petitioners are not guilty of unfair FACTS: competition. Both, however, were denied in Resolution No. 2004-18 dated 1. Respondent IN-N-OUT Burger, Inc., a foreign corporation organized under October 28, 2004. the laws of California, U.S.A., and not doing business in the Philippines, 7. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition before the Court of Appeals which filed before the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the IPO (BLA-IPO), an was dismissed for lack of merit. It held that the right to appeal is not a administrative complaint against petitioners Sehwani, Inc. and Benita’s natural right or a part of due process, but a procedural remedy of statutory Frites, Inc. for violation of intellectual property rights, attorney’s fees and origin, hence, its requirements must be strictly complied with. The appeal damages with prayer for the issuance of a restraining order or writ of being filed out of time, the December 22, 2003 Decision and the October preliminary injunction 28, 2004 Orders of Bureau Director Beltran-Abelardo are now final and 2. Respondent alleged that it is the owner of the tradename "IN-N-OUT" and executory trademarks "IN-N-OUT," "IN-N-OUT Burger & Arrow Design" and "IN- N-OUT Burger Logo," which are used in its business since 1948 up to the ISSUE/s: present. These tradename and trademarks were registered in the United 1. WoN the CA erred in cancelling the claim of ownership over the name In- States as well as in other parts of the world. N-OUT of Sehwani Inc? – NO, kasi… 3. Respondent applied with the IPO for the registration of its trademark "IN- N-OUT Burger & Arrow Design" and servicemark "IN-N-OUT." In the RULING: SC affirmed the CA decision course of its application, respondent discovered that petitioner Sehwani, Inc. had obtained Trademark Registration No. 56666 for the mark "IN N RATIO: OUT" (THE INSIDE OF THE LETTER "O" FORMED LIKE A STAR) on 1. How the SC arrived with their decision. Bold yung important. December 17, 1993 without its authority.Respondent thus demanded that 2. Villamiel, concurring: dito mo lalagay yung summary. petitioner Sehwani, Inc. desist from claiming ownership of the mark "IN-N- OUT" and to voluntarily cancel its Trademark Registration No. 56666. Petitioner Sehwani, Inc. however refused to accede to the demand and even entered into a Licensing Agreement granting its co-petitioner Benita’s Frites, Inc. license to use for a period of five years the trademark "IN-N-
United States v. Cornell Augustus McKenzie United States of America v. Marlon Bramwell, A/K/A May Day, United States of America v. Kakuga Waters, A/K/A Cougar, United States of America v. Kenneth Ford, A/K/A K-9, 983 F.2d 1058, 4th Cir. (1993)