Case Digest (G.R. No. 164321)
Facts:
The case is Skechers, U.S.A., Inc. v. Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp., G.R. No. 164321, March 23, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Skechers, U.S.A., Inc. (petitioner) is the registered owner of the trademarks “SKECHERS” (Reg. No. 63364) and a stylized “S” within an oval (Reg. No. 4-1996-110182). Respondent Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp. (respondent) marketed rubber shoes under the mark “Strong” and used a stylized “S” on its products and packaging. Trendworks International Corporation intervened as petitioner-intervenor claiming to be Skechers’ sole licensed distributor in the Philippines.Petitioner sought and obtained two search warrants from Branch 24, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila (Search Warrant Nos. 02-2827 and 02-2828). The warrants were served on respondent’s outlet and warehouse and over 6,000 pairs of shoes bearing the respondent’s “S” logo were seized. Respondent moved to quash the warrants on the ground there was no confusing similarity between the marks. On November 7, 2002, the RTC granted the motion and ordered the seized goods returned.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which on November 17, 2003 affirmed the RTC’s order quashing the search warrants. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court challenging the CA decision, assailing the CA for considering defenses on the merits and for resolving guilt rather than limiting review to whether the RTC committed grave abuse in quashing the warrants. The Supreme Court initially, in a November 30, 2006 Decision (penalized by Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario), dismissed the petition. Both petitioner and petitioner-intervenor filed Motions for Reconsideration of that dismissal, arguing ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion by considering matters of defense and effectively deciding guilt when reviewing the RTC’s quashal of the search warrants?
- Was respondent’s use of a stylized “S” and the overall design of its shoes likely to cause confusion with petitioner’s registered marks, thus constituting trademark infringement under...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)