C3. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
C3. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
C3. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
532
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
another with the end and probable effect of deceiving the public.
The essential elements of unfair competition are (1) confusing
similarity in the general appearance of the goods; and (2) intent to
deceive the public and defraud a competitor.
533
BRION, J.:
We review in this petition for review on certiorari1 the
(1) decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV
No. 60777 that reversed the ruling of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 85 (RTC),3 and dismissed the
petitioner Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc.’s
(SUPERIOR) complaint for trademark infringement and
unfair competition (with prayer for preliminary injunction)
against the respondents Kunnan Enterprises Ltd.
(KUNNAN) and Sports Concept and Distributor, Inc.
(SPORTS CONCEPT); and (2) the CA resolution4 that
denied SUPERIOR’s subsequent motion for
reconsideration. The RTC decision that the CA reversed
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
534
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
10 SUPERIOR also claimed that it first used the mark “KENNEX &
DEVICE OF LETTER ‘K” INSIDE A CIRCLE OF THORNS” in the
Philippines on March 15, 1978; the mark was registered in its name under
Supplemental Registration No. 4730 dated May 23,
535
_______________
1980 to be used for the following goods: “tennis racket, pelota racket,
pingpong, squash racket, badminton racket, basketball, tennis ball, soccer
ball, foot ball, badminton shuttlecock, sports clothing, head ban, wrist
band, basketball goal net, tennis net, volleyball net, tennis shoulder bag,
handbag and sport rubber shoes, tennis string;” id.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
536
_______________
13 Id., at p. 102.
14 KUNNAN alleged that it has manufactured products bearing the
KENNEX and PRO KENNEX trademarks and sold them in the
Philippines, initially through the importation by independent outlets and
the subsequently through agreements with local distributors; id., at pp.
90-91.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
537
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
538
_______________
17 Id., at p. 92.
18 Id., at p. 94.
539
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
_______________
19 On January 1, 1998, Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the
Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, took effect which abolished
among other offices, the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology
Transfer and transferred its functions to the newly created Intellectual
Property Office.
20 Id., at p. 36.
540
_______________
21 Id., at p. 82.
22 Id., at pp. 36-37.
23 The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that it appearing from the
established facts that great and irreparable damage and injury has
resulted and will continue to result to the Plaintiff, let a writ of
preliminary injunction be issued enjoining the defendants KUNNAN
ENTERPRISES LIMITED, and SPORTS CONCEPT AND DISTRIBUTOR
INC., their officers, employees, agents, representatives, or assigns and
other persons acting for and in their behalf, from using, in connection with
its business the trademarks KENNEX, PRO-KENNEX AND KENNEX
and DEVICE OF LETTER “K” INSIDE A CIRCLE OF THORNS and the
like and any other marks and trade names which are identical or
confusingly similar to plaintiff’s marks and trade names.
a.) All infringing matter in the possession of defendants, its officers,
employees, agents, representatives, or as-
541
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
_______________
542
_______________
25 Rollo, p. 39.
543
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
_______________
26 Id., at p. 93. While the dispositive portion of the BLA Decision dated
October 30, 2003 referred only to the PRO-KENNEX trademark,
Certificate of Registration No. 4730 which covers the KENNEX
trademarks was cancelled in the same Decision. This oversight was
remedied in the Director General’s Decision dated December 8, 2004
which noted that the “registrations and the applications cover the mark
PRO-KENNEX except Registration No. 4730 which refers to the mark
KENNEX;” id., at pp. 53-54.
27 Supra note 23.
28 Id., at p. 67.
29 Decision penned by Guevara-Salonga, J., with Roxas and Garcia,
JJ., concurring.
544
The CA Ruling
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
_______________
545
the certificate.33
In contrast with the failure of SUPERIOR’s evidence,
the CA found that KUNNAN presented sufficient evidence
to rebut SUPERIOR’s presumption of ownership over the
trademarks. KUNNAN established that SUPERIOR, far
from being the rightful owner of the disputed trademarks,
was merely KUNNAN’s exclusive distributor. This
conclusion was based on three pieces of evidence that, to
the CA, clearly established that SUPERIOR had no
proprietary interest over the disputed trademarks.
First, the CA found that the Distributorship Agreement,
considered in its entirety, positively confirmed that SUPE-
RIOR sought to be the KUNNAN’s exclusive distributor.
The CA based this conclusion on the following provisions of
the Distributorship Agreement:
_______________
546
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
_______________
547
The Petition
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT PETITIONER SUPERIOR IS NOT THE TRUE
AND RIGHTFUL OWNER OF THE TRADEMARKS “KENNEX”
AND “PRO-KENNEX” IN THE PHILIPPINES
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER SUPERIOR IS A
MERE DISTRIBUTOR OF RESPONDENT KUNNAN IN THE
PHILIPPINES
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE
DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON
CITY IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q-93-14888, LIFTING THE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED AGAINST
RESPONDENTS KUNNAN AND SPORTS CONCEPT AND
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF
TRADEMARK AND UNFAIR COMPETITION WITH
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
_______________
G.R. No. L-28554, Ferbuary 28, 1983, 120 SCRA 804, 808-809; Gabriel v.
Perez, G.R. No. L-24075, January 31, 1974, 55 SCRA 406.
548
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
549
_______________
550
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
_______________
551
_______________
552
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
_______________
553
_______________
43 Mata v. Court of Appeals, 376 Phil. 525; 318 SCRA 416 (1999).
44 McDonald’s Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., G. R. No.
143993, August 18, 2004, 437 SCRA 10.
45 Supra note 31.
554
_______________
555
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
_______________
556
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
_______________
557
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
_______________
558
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/28
10/31/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618
Petition denied.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166cab4acc6350e147e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/28