Case Digest (G.R. No. 159938)
Facts:
Shangri-La International Hotel Management, Ltd., Shangri-La Properties, Inc., Makati Shangri-La Hotel & Resort, Inc., and Kuok Philippines Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 159938, January 22, 2007, Supreme Court First Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court. The Resolution before the Court disposed of a Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Developers Group of Companies, Inc. (DGCI) seeking reversal of this Court’s Decision of March 31, 2006.The underlying controversy arose from Civil Case No. Q-91-8476, a complaint for trademark infringement involving the name/mark “Shangri‑La” and an accompanying “S” logo. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City rendered a Decision dated March 8, 1996. The matter proceeded to the Court of Appeals, which issued a Decision on May 15, 2003 and a Resolution on September 15, 2003. Petitioners brought a petition to the Supreme Court (seeking review of the CA and RTC dispositions), and on March 31, 2006 the Court issued a Decision that granted the petition, set aside the RTC and CA rulings, and ordered the dismissal of the infringement complaint.
DGCI then filed the motion for reconsideration now resolved, asserting multiple grounds: (1) petitioners’ certification of non‑forum shopping was insufficient; (2) the word “Shangri‑La” and the “S” logo were legitimately adopted and used by the Kuok Group as corporate and hotel names; (3) petitioners’ claim of ownership of the mark and logo was baseless; (4) petitioners impermissibly changed theory from owner to a mere person who may be damaged; (5) the Court’s finding that registrations exist worldwide was inaccurate; (6) DGCI’s registration was valid because it had used the marks at least two months prior to application; (7) under R.A. No. 166, Sec. 2‑A the principle of territoriality requires actual commercial use in...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent DGCI’s motion for reconsideration raise new and substantial grounds sufficient to warrant reversal of the Court’s March 31, 2006 decision?
- Was DGCI’s registration and use of the “Shangri‑La” mark and the “S” logo valid under R.A. No. 166, considering alleged bad faith and the two‑month prior use requirement/territoriality principle?
- Were petitioners barred from relief by an alleged impermissible change of theory from asserting ownership to cl...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)