Case Digest (G.R. No. 157216) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On November 26, 1998, respondents Montres Rolex S.A. and Rolex Centre Phil., Limited, owners of the Rolex and Crown Device trademarks, filed Civil Case No. Q-98-36172 for trademark infringement and damages with prayer for a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against petitioner 246 Corporation, doing business as Rolex Music Lounge, before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90. They alleged that since July 1996, petitioner adopted and used the mark “Rolex” in its business name and in newspaper advertisements—“Rolex Music Lounge, KTV, Disco & Party Club”—without authorization. In its answer, petitioner raised special affirmative defenses, arguing that no confusion could arise since its entertainment services are unrelated to respondents’ watch and clock business, and challenging the complaint’s verification and certification against forum shopping on the ground that Atty. Alonzo Ancheta lacked authority to represent respondents. On July 21, 2000, petit Case Digest (G.R. No. 157216) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and origin of suit
- Montres Rolex S.A. and Rolex Centre Phil., Limited (respondents), owners of the “Rolex” mark, filed on November 26, 1998 before RTC Quezon City, Branch 90, Civil Case No. Q-98-36172 a complaint for trademark infringement and damages, praying also for a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.
- Petitioner 246 Corporation, doing business as “Rolex Music Lounge,” was alleged to have adopted and used without authority the mark “Rolex” in its business name and advertisements since July 1996, on the ground such use would cause confusion with respondents’ registered marks for watches, clocks, bracelets and parts thereof.
- Procedural history in trial court and appellate courts
- Petitioner filed its answer invoking special affirmative defenses: (a) no infringement because goods/services are unrelated (entertainment vs. timepieces), and (b) defective verification and certification against forum shopping, since Atty. Alonzo Ancheta lacked authority to represent respondents.
- On July 21, 2000, petitioner moved for a preliminary hearing on its affirmative defenses and filed a subpoena ad testificandum to require Atty. Ancheta’s attendance.
- By order dated October 27, 2000, the trial court granted the motion to quash the subpoena ad testificandum and denied petitioner’s motion for preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses together with its motion to dismiss the complaint. A motion for reconsideration was denied on March 16, 2001.
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which on November 28, 2002 dismissed it (CA‐G.R. SP No. 64660). A motion for reconsideration was denied by resolution of February 13, 2003.
- Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, assailing the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution.
Issues:
- Whether the trial court’s October 27, 2000 order denied both (a) petitioner’s motion for preliminary hearing on its affirmative defenses and (b) its motion to dismiss the complaint.
- If so, whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying those motions.
- Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in quashing the subpoena ad testificandum directed to Atty. Alonzo Ancheta.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)