G.R. No. 193569 - Edmond Lim and Gerd Paland vs. Catalina See

On March 20, 2000, Chai Seng Ang (Ang), predecessor of Catalina See (See), filed six applications for trademarks "CROWN DEVICE," "JOWIKA & DEVICE," "SCHISO & DEVICE," "DEVICE MARK," "CROWN," and "ORO & DEVICE" used for nippers, scissors, nail cutters, cutlery, file, spoon, and knife.
On February 26, 2003, Ang executed Assignments of Trademark, transferring the trademark applications to See, who filed Declarations of Actual Use the same day.

In 2004, Edmond Lim and Gerd Paland (Lim and Paland) opposed See's trademark registrations, claiming the marks were identical to registered marks owned and used by Paland and exclusively distributed by Lim in the Philippines.
Paland claimed ownership of marks used since 1970 (for "SCHISO & DEVICE") and 1974 for others, through predecessor companies engaged in manufacture and worldwide distribution, including the Philippines.
Lim was the exclusive distributor of products bearing the contested marks in the Philippines.

Affidavits of Lim and Paland and a distributorship agreement.
Certificates of Registration issued by the German Patent and Trade Office for the marks.
Photographs, sales and delivery invoices showing distribution in the Philippines and other countries.

See was proprietor of Lena's Enterprises, a sole proprietorship distributing nippers bearing the disputed marks since 1981.
Testified seeing the marks as early as 1968 in her grandfather's bazaar, which was managed by her father, Joaquin Siy, who used to order products with those marks from Ang.
Presented affidavits of witnesses corroborating her testimony, as well as certificates of registration for her business, samples of products bearing the marks, assignments of trademark from Ang to her, and other documentary evidence.

December 22, 2006, the Bureau of Legal Affairs denied the opposition for all marks except "SCHISO & DEVICE".
The Bureau credited See’s testimony, finding prior adoption and use, and found no distributor or principal-agent relationship between Paland and Ang.
February 5, 2007, Lim and Paland appealed.
March 13, 2009, Director General of the Intellectual Property Office reversed Bureau's decisions, granting the oppositions, finding See did not establish ownership and Ang was a mere importer or distributor.

On April 21, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the Director General's decision, reinstated the Bureau's decisions, and ruled that See proved ownership and usage as an owner, not merely an importer or distributor.
Found Paland failed to prove connection to predecessor companies or ownership rights, and considered the "first-to-apply" rule favored See.

Whether Catalina See is entitled to register the contested trademarks in accordance with the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.