7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

1/22

3.b. Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Baguio City

SECOND DIVISION

SUPERIOR COERCI!"

EN#ERPRISES$ INC%$

Petitioner,

- versus -

&UNN!N EN#ERPRISES "#D%

!ND SPOR#S CONCEP# '

DIS#RIBU#OR$ INC%$

Respondents. -- -

(%R% No% )*++,-

Present:

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

BRION,

DEL CASTILLO,

ABAD, and

PEREZ,JJ.

Prou!"ated:

Apri! #$, #$%$

./////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////.

D E C I S I O N

BRION$J%0

&e revie' in t(is petition )or revie' on certiorari*%+t(e %deision*#+o) t(e

Court o) Appea!s CA in CA-/.R. C0 No. 1$222 t(at reversed t(e ru!in" o) t(e

Re"iona! Tria! Court o) 3ue4on Cit5, Bran( 67 RTC,*8+and disissed t(e

petitioner Superior Coeria! Enterprises, In.s SUPERIOR op!aint )or

tradear9 in)rin"eent and un)air opetition 'it( pra5er )or pre!iinar5

inuntion a"ainst t(e respondents ;unnan Enterprises Ltd. KUNNAN and

Sports Conept and Distri+t(at denied S?PERIORs suin)rin"eent and un)air opetition, and ordered t(e to pa5

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn1

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

2/22

S?PERIOR P#,$$$,$$$.$$ in daa"es,P7$$,$$$.$$ as attorne5s )ees, and osts o)

t(e suit.

#1E 2!C#U!" !N#ECEDEN#S

On e

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

3/22

ountries, and 'ide!5 prooted t(e ;ENNE and PRO ;ENNE tradear9s

t(rou"( 'or!d'ide advertiseents in print edia and sponsors(ips o) 9no'n

tennis p!a5ers.

On Oto

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

4/22

1. &it(out ;?NNANs perission, t(e Superior annot proure ot(er "oods

supp!5 under ;ENNE

avai!a

Even t(ou"( t(is A"reeent !ear!5 stated t(at S?PERIOR 'as o

S?PERIOR

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

5/22

7. Superior a"rees t(at a)ter t(e assi"nent o) t(e a%$# Conso"idated

Petitions for Cance""ation invo!vin" t(e ;ENNE and PRO ;ENNE

tradear9s.*#$+In essene, ;?NNAN )i!ed t(e Petition )or Cane!!ation and

Opposition on t(e "round t(at S?PERIOR )raudu!ent!5 re"istered and appropriatedt(e disputed tradear9s= as ere distri

'it( S?PERIOR, ;?NNAN appointed SPORTS CONCEPT as its ne'

distri

o'ner o) t(e disputed tradear9s= # it terinated its Distri

pre!iinar5 inuntion enoinin" ;?NNAN and SPORTS CONCEPT )ro usin"

t(e disputed tradear9s.

T(e RTC )ound t(at S?PERIOR su))iient!5 proved t(at it 'as t(e )irst user

and o'ner o) t(e disputed tradear9s in t(e P(i!ippines,

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

6/22

t(e Diretor o) Patents in Inter Partes Case No. %2$ and %28> t(at S?PERIOR

'as ri"(t)u!!5 entit!ed to re"ister t(e ar9 ;ENNE as user and o'ner t(ereo). It

a!so onsidered t(e &(ereas !ause o) t(e Distri+

;?NNAN and SPORTS CONCEPT appea!ed t(e RTCs deision to t(e CA '(ere

t(e appea! 'as do9eted as CA-/.R. C0 No. 1$222. ;?NNAN aintained

t(atS?PERIOR 'as ere!5 its distri

in t(e ase o) Crisanta J. /a$1, a ere

distri

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

7/22

6>711, !i9e'ise )or t(e re"istration o) t(e ar9 PRO-;ENNE are

(ere

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

8/22

T(e CA stressed t(at S?PERIORs possession o) t(e a)oreentioned Certi)iates o)

Prinipa! Re"istration does not on!usive!5 esta

re

to t(e CA, !ear!5 esta

disputed tradear9s.

!irst, t(e CA )ound t(at t(e Distri

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

9/22

Second, t(e CA a!so noted t(at S?PERIOR ade t(e epress underta9in" in

t(e Assi"nent A"reeent to a9no'!ed"e t(atKUNNAN is sti"" the rea" and

truthfu" o*ner of the PRO KENNE+- trademars, and t(at it s(a!! a"ree t(at it

'i!! not use the ri&ht of the a%o)ementioned trademars to do an#thin& *hich is

unfa)oura%"e or harmfu" to KUNNAN. To t(e CA, t(ese provisions are !ear!5inonsistent 'it( S?PERIORs !ai o) o'ners(ip o) t(e disputed tradear9s. T(e

CA a!so o

I.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn35

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

10/22

&GETGER OR NOT TGE CO?RT O APPEALS ERRED IN

GOLDIN/ TGAT PETITIONER S?PERIOR IS NOT TGE TR?E

AND RI/GT?L O&NER O TGE TRADEHAR;S ;ENNE

AND PRO-;ENNE IN TGE PGILIPPINES

II.

&GETGER OR NOT TGE GONORABLE CO?RT O APPEALS

ERRED IN GOLDIN/ TGAT PETITIONER S?PERIOR IS A

HERE DISTRIB?TOR O RESPONDENT ;?NNAN IN

TGE PGILIPPINES

III.

&GETGER OR NOT TGE GONORABLE CO?RT O APPEALSERRED IN RE0ERSIN/ AND SETTIN/ ASIDE TGE DECISION

O TGE RE/IONAL TRIAL CO?RT O 3?EZON CITJ IN CI0IL

CASE NO. 3-8-%>666, LITIN/ TGE PRELIHINARJ

IN?NCTION ISS?ED A/AINST RESPONDENTS ;?NNAN

AND SPORTS CONCEPT AND DISHISSIN/ TGE COHPLAINT

OR INRIN/EHENT O TRADEHAR; AND ?NAIR

COHPETITION &ITG PRELIHINARJ IN?NCTION

#1E COUR#S RU"IN(

:e 3o not fin3 the petition meritorious%

On the Issue of Trademark Infringement

&e )irst onsider t(e e))et o) t(e )ina! and eeutor5 deision in t(e Re"istration

Cane!!ation Case on t(e present ase. T(is deision - rendered after t(e CA

deision )or tradear9 in)rin"eent and un)air opetition in CA-/.R. C0 No.

1$222 root o) t(e present ase - states:As to '(et(er respondent ;unnan 'as a

o) o'ners(ip in )avor o) Superior, t(e )orer su))iient!5 esta

)raudu!ent re"istration o) t(e @uestioned tradear9s 62 Prinipa!

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

11/22

Re"ister )or t(e ;ENNE tradear9 'ere )raudu!ent!5 o

tradear9s in t(e P(i!ippines. T(us, ;unnan 'as is!ed into assi"nin"to Superior its ;unnans o'n app!iation )or t(e disputed tradear9s. In t(e

sae assi"nent douent, (o'ever. Superior 'as

app!ia

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/169974.htm#_ftn36

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

12/22

connection *ith'(i( su( use is !i9e!5 to ause on)usion or ista9e or to

deeive pur(asers or ot(ers as tot(e soure or ori"in o) su( "oods or servies,

or identit5 o) su( op5, or o!ora

appea! is ta9en, unti! t(e ud"ent on appea!

T(us, 'e (ave previous!5 (e!d t(at t(e ane!!ation o) re"istration o) a

tradear9 (as t(e e))et o) deprivin" t(e re"istrant o) protetion )ro in)rin"eent

)ro t(e oent ud"ent or order o) ane!!ation (as

in)rin"eent !ost its !e"a!

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

13/22

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

14/22

partiu!ar )ats or issues in anot(er !iti"ation

e!eent t(e p!ainti))s o'ners(ip o) t(e ar9 'as '(at t(e Re"istration

Cane!!ation Case deided 'it( )ina!it5. On t(is e!eent depended t(e va!idit5 o)

t(e re"istrations t(at, on t(eir o'n, on!5 "ave rise to t(e presuption o), 7+

In no unertain ters, the appellate court in the Registration Cancellation

Case rule3 that SUPERIOR 5as a mere 3istributor an3 coul3 not ha;e been

the o5ner$ an3 5as thus an in;ali3 registrant of the 3ispute3

tra3emar7s%Si"ni)iant!5, t(ese are t(e eat ters o) t(e ru!in" t(e CA arrived at

in t(e present petition no' under our revie'. T(us, '(et(er 'it( one or t(e ot(er,

t(e ru!in" on t(e issue o) o'ners(ip o) t(e tradear9s is t(e sae. /iven, (o'ever,

t(e )ina! and eeutor5 ru!in" in t(e Re"istration Cane!!ation Case on t(e issue o)

o'ners(ip t(at

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

15/22

Our revie' o) t(e reords s(o's t(at t(e neit(er t(e RTC nor t(e CA ade

an5 )atua! )indin"s 'it( respet to t(e issue o) un)air opetition. In its

Cop!aint,S?PERIOR a!!e"ed t(at:*>1+

%2. In anuar5 %8, t(e p!ainti)) !earned t(at t(e de)endant ;unnan Enterprises,Ltd., is intendin" to appoint t(e de)endant Sports Conept and Distri

a!!e"ed (ereina!i9e!5 to disredit t(e oeria! ativities and )uture "ro't( o) p!ainti))s

o) one person as t(e "oods or

a!u!ated to deeive t(e ordinar5

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

16/22

essentia! re@uisites in an ation to restrain un)air opetition is proo) o) )raud= t(e

intent to deeive, atua! or pro

t(e a

t(e "oods ori"inated )roS?PERIOR sine t(e notie !ear!5 indiated t(at

;?NNAN is t(e anu)aturer o) t(e "oods

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

17/22

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

18/22

Assoiate ustie

OSE POR#U(!" PEREG

Assoiate ustie

!##ES#!#ION

I attest t(at t(e on!usions in t(e a

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

19/22

REFN!#O S% PUNO

C(ie) ustie

*%+?nder Ru!e >7 o) t(e R?LES O CO?RT.*#+Dated une ##, #$$7= penned

re"istered t(e >26 dated Ha5 8%, %67 to 28$ dated Ha5 #8, %6$ to $8#1 dated

Au"ust %#, %66 )or t(e )o!!o'in" "oods: tennis ra9ets, s@uas( ra9ets, ra9et%$8# dated Septe

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

20/22

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

21/22

7/25/2019 3.b. Superior Commercial vs. Kunnan Enterprises

22/22