Case Digest (G.R. No. 115115)
Facts:
Conrad and Company, Inc. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Fitrite, Inc., and Victoria Biscuits Co., Inc., G.R. No. 115115. July 18, 1995, Supreme Court Third Division, Vitug, J., writing for the Court.
Private respondents Fitrite, Inc. and Victoria Biscuits Co., Inc. (plaintiffs below) are domestic manufacturers and distributors of biscuits sold under the trademark SUNSHINE. Fitrite applied for and obtained registration of the mark in the Supplemental Register (Certificate No. SR-6217, approved May 20, 1983) and later in the Principal Register (Certificate No. 47590, approved March 22, 1990). Fitrite authorized Victoria to use the mark in 1984 and later assigned the trademark interest to Victoria in 1990.
Private respondents alleged that sometime in 1988 respondent Conrad and Company, Inc. (petitioner here) became exclusive importer and dealer for a foreign principal, Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., and thereafter imported, sold and distributed biscuits bearing the SUNSHINE mark in the Philippines without plaintiffs' consent. Plaintiffs filed a complaint for injunction with damages and sought preliminary relief; petitioner moved to dismiss on grounds including litis pendentia, doctrine of primary jurisdiction, and failure to state a cause of action. The trial court, in an Order dated February 26, 1992, granted the motion to dismiss, reasoning that the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) had primary jurisdiction because cancellation proceedings involving the same mark were pending before it.
Private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 38822). In an Amended Decision dated April 20, 1994, the Court of Appeals set aside the trial court’s dismissal, reinstated the complaint, ordered Conrad to file an answer, and—pending final determination—enjoined Conrad from importing, manufacturing, selling or distributing goods bearing the SUNSHINE & device label registered in Fitrite’s name, treating that order as a writ of injunction. The CA also allowed the trial court discretion to suspend proceedings pending resolution of the administrative cancellation proceedings before BPTTT.
Petitioner brought the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for review, challenging (among other things) the CA’s reinstatement of the complaint and its issuance of an injunction pending the outcome of the BPTTT cancellation proceedings; petitioner al...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in allowing the trial court to proceed with plaintiffs’ action for injunction and damages despite the pendency of trademark cancellation proceedings before the BPTTT (i.e., was the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or litis pendentia applicable)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in issuing (and treating its order as) a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining petitioner from importing, manufacturing, selling and distributing products bearing th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)