G.R. No. 164321 - Skechers, U.S.A., Inc. vs. Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp.

Petitioner Skechers U.S.A., Inc. is the registered owner of the trademarks “SKECHERS” (Reg. No. 63364) and a stylized “S” within an oval design (Reg. No. 4-1996-110182) under Republic Act No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code).
Respondents comprise Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp. (a.k.a. Inter Pacific Trading Corp.), Strong Sports Gear Co., Ltd., Strongshoes Warehouse, Strong Fashion Shoes Trading, and their proprietors, directors, officers, employees and occupants of the premises at S-7, Ed & Joe’s Commercial Arcade, No. 153 Quirino Avenue, Parañaque City, engaged in the manufacture and sale of “Strong” rubber shoes bearing a stylized “S” logo.

Petitioner filed an application before Branch 24, RTC Manila, for the issuance of two search warrants (Nos. 02-2827 and 02-2828) under Sections 155 and 170 of R.A. No. 8293, alleging trademark infringement by respondents.
The RTC issued the warrants; the NBI executed them, seizing over 6,000 pairs of “Strong” shoes bearing the stylized “S.”
Respondents moved to quash the warrants, arguing lack of confusing similarity between “Skechers” and “Strong” shoes. On November 7, 2002, the RTC granted the motion and ordered return of the seized goods.
Petitioner petitioned for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). On November 17, 2003, the CA affirmed the RTC’s order, finding no grave abuse of discretion in quashing the warrants.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court (SC) (G.R. No. 164321), asserting that the CA erred by delving into the merits of trademark infringement and by finding no probable cause for the search warrants.
Trendworks International Corporation intervened, claiming to be the sole licensed distributor of Skechers products in the Philippines.
On November 30, 2006, the SC dismissed the petition. Both petitioner and intervenor filed separate Motions for Reconsideration before the SC, reiterating that the CA and RTC misapplied the tests for confusing similarity and abused their discretion.

Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion by considering substantive defenses in a trademark infringement case when reviewing the RTC’s issuance and quashal of search warrants.
Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in finding no probable cause for trademark infringement, the sole issue for search-warrant validity.

Whether the CA and RTC erred in applying the Holistic (Totality) Test rather than the Dominancy Test in determining confusing similarity between petitioner’s stylized “S” mark and respondents’ use of the same.