Case Digest (G.R. No. 221732) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Fernando U. Juan v. Roberto U. Juan (G.R. No. 221732, August 23, 2017), petitioner Fernando U. Juan challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Court of Appeals for alleged non-compliance with procedural requirements. Respondent Roberto U. Juan began using the service name and mark “Lavandera Ko” in his laundry business on July 4, 1994, opened a store in Makati City in 1995, secured a copyright certificate from the National Library on March 17, 1997, and registered the business name with the Department of Trade and Industry on November 13, 1998. He incorporated Laundromatic Corporation in 1997 to manage the expanding franchise network. Petitioner Fernando, Roberto’s brother, filed an application with the Intellectual Property Office on June 5, 1995 and obtained a certificate of registration for “Lavandera Ko” on October 18, 2001. Upon discovering that Fernando was selling his own franchises and threatening respondent’s franchisees, Roberto filed in the Regional Trial Court Case Digest (G.R. No. 221732) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Fernando U. Juan (petitioner) and Roberto U. Juan (respondent, substituted by son Christian Juan after Roberto’s death) are brothers who each claimed exclusive rights over the service name/mark “Lavandera Ko.”
- Respondent Roberto began using “Lavandera Ko” in his laundry business on July 4, 1994, opened a store in Makati in 1995, obtained a National Library copyright certificate in 1997, formed Laundromatic Corporation in 1997, and registered the business name with DTI in 1998.
- Petitioner’s Registration and Franchise Sales
- Petitioner Fernando filed an application with the IPO on June 5, 1995, and secured a Certificate of Registration for the mark “Lavandera Ko and Design” on October 18, 2001.
- Respondent Roberto discovered petitioner’s IPO registration and alleged that Fernando was selling competing franchises and threatening Roberto’s franchisees.
- RTC Proceedings
- Roberto filed a petition for injunction, unfair competition, infringement of copyright, and cancellation of trademark and trade name with prayer for TRO and preliminary injunction. The RTC granted preliminary injunction on June 10, 2004.
- After substitution of parties and presentation of evidence, the RTC issued a September 23, 2013 resolution dismissing both parties’ claims, lifting the injunction, and ordering cancellation of Roberto’s copyright registration and Fernando’s IPO registration.
- Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Fernando appealed to the CA but failed to comply with requirements of Section 13, Rule 44 and Section 1, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
- On May 7, 2015, the CA dismissed the appeal on technical grounds; its December 4, 2015 resolution denied reconsideration.
- Supreme Court Petition
- Fernando filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 on January 25, 2016, challenging both the CA’s procedural dismissal and the RTC’s substantive finding that neither party had rights to “Lavandera Ko.”
Issues:
- Procedural Issue
- Whether the CA properly dismissed the appeal on purely technical grounds despite sufficient merit in the brief.
- Nature of Intellectual Property Rights
- Whether a mark is the same as a copyright.
- Whether petitioner Fernando is the owner of the mark “Lavandera Ko.”
- Evidentiary Issue
- Whether the RTC properly took judicial notice of an internet article over the parties’ submitted evidence.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)