Title
Philip Morris, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 91332
Decision Date
Jul 16, 1993
Foreign cigarette manufacturers sued a local company for trademark infringement over the use of "MARK," claiming irreparable harm. The Supreme Court reinstated a preliminary injunction, upholding trademark protection under the Paris Convention despite petitioners not operating locally.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 140203)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Petitioners and their trademarks
    • Philip Morris, Inc. (U.S.) – registered owner of “MARK VII” (PH Cert. No. 18723, Apr. 26, 1973)
    • Benson & Hedges (Canada), Inc. – registered owner of “MARK TEN” (PH Cert. No. 11147, May 28, 1964)
    • Fabriques de Tabac Reunies, S.A. – registered owner of “LARK” (PH Cert. No. 10953, Mar. 25, 1964)
  • Respondent’s activities and application
    • Fortune Tobacco Corp. manufactured and sold cigarettes under the mark “MARK” in the Philippines
    • Applied for registration of “MARK” (Serial No. 44008, filed Feb. 13, 1981) – declared confusingly similar and later abandoned; refiled in 1986
    • Held temporary BIR authorization (Letter of Acting Commissioner Diaz, Jan. 30, 1979) subject to Patent Office registration
  • Procedural history
    • Civil Case No. 47374 (Pasig RTC): petitioners sued for infringement and sought preliminary injunction (Aug. 18, 1982)
    • RTC denied writ on Mar. 28, 1983 (Judge Reyes) and upon reconsiderations (Apr. 5, 1984; Apr. 22, 1987) citing no local business and pending application
    • CA (SP No. 13132) granted injunction May 5, 1989 (found prima facie infringement)
    • CA lifted injunction Sept. 14, 1989 upon respondent’s offer to post counterbond; petitioners’ motions thereafter denied

Issues:

  • Capacity of foreign corporations not licensed or doing business in the Philippines to sue for trademark infringement and obtain preliminary injunction under Sec. 21-A of the Trademark Law.
  • Applicability of the “actual use in commerce in the Philippines” requirement under Sections 2 and 2-A for entitlement to injunctive relief.
  • Propriety of the Court of Appeals’ exercise of discretion under Section 6, Rule 58, Revised Rules of Court, in lifting the injunction upon filing of a counterbond.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.