G r no 171053

However, in disposing of the instant case, we shall resolve the principal issues raised by petitioners. It also appears that worldwide, petitioner has thousands of trademark registrations x x x in various countries. In an entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.

Accordingly, Application Serial no. But we should hold here further that Quiambao committed a serious misconduct that merited no consideration or compassion. First, whether respondent Moldex Realty, Inc. The sachet confiscated from accused-appellant was positively identified, marked and preserved as evidence, and upon laboratory examination yielded positive for shabu.

The scope of protection initially afforded by Article 6bis of the Paris Convention has been expanded in the Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks, wherein the World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO General Assembly and the Paris Union agreed to a nonbinding recommendation that a well-known mark should be protected in a country even if the mark is neither registered nor used in that country.

He had no compelling reason to be absent from work, substantially prejudicing his employer, which was a public utility whose distribution of electricity to its customers within its franchise area was a service that was very vital and of utmost necessity to the lives of all its customers.

Both, however, were denied in Resolution No. Duplication or imitation is not necessary; neither is it required that the mark sought to be registered suggests an effort to imitate. Section b of R. It may be applied directly by the tribunals and officials of each member country by the mere publication or proclamation of the Convention, after its ratification according to the public law of each state and the order for its execution.

The evident purpose of the procedure provided for is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or the innocence of the accused.

Gullas, [14] we had occasion to define a broker and distinguish it from an agent, thus: In their answer with counterclaim, 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 because its mark is not registered or used in the Philippines.

Before the enactment of Republic Act No. This is particularly true in that class of cases where the offense is of a kind habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. On separate dates, the parties appealed to the Office of the Director General which rendered an Order dated December 7,[14] in Appeal No.

Similarly, the implementing rules of Republic Actspecifically Section e Rule Criteria for determining whether a mark is well known, also takes into account the extent to which the mark has been registered in the world in determining whether a mark is well known. Harvard University, 29 "[i]ndeed, Section Provided, That in determining whether a mark is well-known, account shall be taken of the knowledge of the relevant sector of the public, rather than of the public at large, including knowledge in the Philipines which has been obtained as a result of the promotion of the mark.

The CA, after reviewing the records of the case, affirmed the findings of the labor tribunals. The letter contains a unilateral declaration by Maxicare that the efforts initiated and negotiations undertaken by Estrada failed, such that the service agreement with Meralco was supposedly directly negotiated by Maxicare.

With the foregoing disquisition, Certificate of Registration No. Thus, the controversy ended when respondent filed that Manifestation. Desperate to get himself absolved from culpability, accused-appellant submits in the alternative that the facts as presented by the prosecution reveal that the law enforcers, specifically PO2 Sembran, instigated him to sell shabu.

Thus, the latter effectively declares that Estrada is not the efficient procuring cause of the sale, and as such, is not entitled to commissions.

Respondent filed its Comment 22 on 23 Juneand petitioner filed its Reply 23 on 10 November This Bureau believes that opposer has no monopoly over the color or diameter or shape of a light bulb or packaging shape unless registrations were secured to protect the same.

Director General Francisco, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly held: In the aforementioned case, we are inclined to favor the declaration of the mark "IN-N-OUT" as an internationally well-known mark on the basis of "registrations in various countries around the world and its comprehensive advertisements therein.

Most importantly, both trademarks are used in the sale of the same goods, which are light bulbs. Let a copy of this Decision as well as the trademark application and records be furnished and returned to the Director of Bureau of Legal Affairs for appropriate action.

In fine, we should be more cautious in awarding financial assistance to the undeserving and those who are unworthy of the liberality of the law. As correctly found by the trial court, accused-appellant was caught in a buy-bust operation.

Further, let also the Directors of the Bureau of Trademarks, the Administrative, Pinancial and Human Resources Development Services Bureau, and the library of the Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau be furnished a copy of this Decision for information, guidance and records purposes.

Accused-appellant was charged with the unauthorized sale and delivery of a dangerous drug in violation of the provisions of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.


After publication, respondent Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N. Thus, the identity of the shabu taken from accused-appellant had been duly preserved and established by the prosecution. Whether or not the mark applied for by petitioner is identical or confusingly similar with that of respondent.

Section 3 thereof provides: Section b of RA provides:Oct 15,  · In-N-Out Burger, Inc. G.R. No. October 15, - Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free.

University of Nueva Caceres College of Law Intellectual Property SY 2nd Semester. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.dated October 21, and January 16,affirming the December 7, Order of Director General Emma C.

Francisco, in Appeal No.and denying the motion for reconsideration, respectively, are AFFIRMED. View Sehwani, Inc. vs. In-N-Out Burger, Inc. G.R. No. October 15, from LAW political at University of Nueva Caceres - Bataan.

Sehwani, Inc. vs. In-N. g.r. no.february 10, - republic of the philippines, petitioner, v. moldex realty, inc., respondent.: chan robles virtual law library: philippine. View Godines v. CA G.R. No. September 13, from LAW political at University of Nueva Caceres - Bataan. Godines v.

CA G.R. No. 1 of 5 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME. 11 rows · G.R. No. December 18, ARSENIO S. QUIAMBAO, Petitioner.

G r no 171053
Rated 0/5 based on 7 review