G.R. No. 119107 - Lagon vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner: Elidad C. Kho, doing business as KEC Cosmetics Laboratory, registered owner of copyrights on “Chin Chun Su” and its container (Certificates No. 0-1358, 0-3678) and assignee of patents on “Chin Chun Su” and device (Certificate No. 4529).
Respondents: Summerville General Merchandising and Co. (exclusive importer, repacker, distributor) and Ang Tiam Chay, claiming authority from Taiwanese manufacturer Shun Yi Factory to register and market Chin Chun Su products in the Philippines.

December 20, 1991: Petitioner filed Civil Case No. Q-91-10926 for injunction and damages, alleging copyright and patent infringement by respondents’ sale of similarly named products in similar containers, causing declines in her sales.
Respondents’ Defense: Summerville duly authorized by manufacturer; petitioner’s copyrights obtained by misrepresentation; patent assignment from Quintin Cheng terminated by manufacturer.
February 10, 1992: RTC, Branch 90, Quezon City, granted writ of preliminary injunction (bond ₱500,000).
March 19, 1992: RTC denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration.

April 24, 1992: Respondents filed certiorari petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 27803) to nullify preliminary injunction, challenged for failing to state civil case docket number and lacking certificate of non-forum shopping.
May 24, 1993: CA set aside RTC’s February 10 and March 19, 1992 orders, declared them null and void, and directed trial to continue on merits.
Petitioner filed motions for reconsideration and for contempt (advertisements by respondents announcing decision).
October 22, 1993: RTC rendered final decision: barred petitioner’s use of “Chin Chun Su” trademark, upheld respondents’ rights to use the name, recognized petitioner’s container copyright, awarded no damages but attorney’s fees of ₱75,000 each.
June 3, 1994: CA denied petitioner’s motions for reconsideration and contempt.

Petitioner’s assignments of error: CA’s failure to rule on motion to dismiss; delay in resolving motion for reconsideration; denial of contempt citations.
Petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court.

Whether petitioner’s copyrights and patents suffice to establish exclusive trademark rights and justify preliminary injunction.
Whether the Court of Appeals properly nullified the preliminary injunction on procedural or substantive grounds (forum shopping, certificate of non-forum shopping).
Whether the delay by the Court of Appeals in resolving petitioner’s motion for reconsideration violated her due process or right to timely appellate relief.
Whether respondents’ advertisements announcing the appellate decision amounted to contempt of court and justified contempt sanctions.