Title
Conrad and Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 115115
Decision Date
Jul 18, 1995
Conrad imported "SUNSHINE" biscuits, infringing Fitrite's trademark. Courts upheld Fitrite's rights, affirming jurisdiction over infringement despite pending cancellation proceedings.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 115115)

Background of the Trademark Registration

Fitrite filed applications for registration of the trademark 'SUNSHINE' in April 1982, establishing its exclusive use since March 31, 1981. By May 20, 1983, Fitrite had been granted a Certificate of Registration No. SR-6217 for 20 years in the Supplemental Register. An application for the Principal Register was approved on March 22, 1990, leading to Certificate of Registration No. 47590. Additionally, on June 28, 1984, Fitrite authorized sister company Victoria to use this trademark.

Allegations of Trademark Infringement

In June 1990, Fitrite discovered that Conrad had started importing, selling, and distributing food products under the 'SUNSHINE' trademark without consent. Despite Conrad's historic absence from the importation of similar goods, it was designated as the exclusive importer by Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., a company based in the United States, leading to allegations of infringement and unfair competition by Fitrite.

Initial Court Proceedings and Arguments

The case was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking an injunction and damages. Conrad filed a motion to dismiss based on claims of litis pendentia (overlapping litigations), primary jurisdiction, and failure to state a cause of action. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss, stating that the issue of trademark ownership should be resolved by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) due to its expertise.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

Dissatisfied with the RTC's ruling, Fitrite appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the RTC's decision, reinstating the case and emphasizing that the issues raised were pertinent to the alleged acts of trademark infringement rather than the validity of the trademark registration itself, and thus fell within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.

Key Legal Issues on Appeal

Conrad sought to review the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the appellate court had erred by not recognizing the primary jurisdiction of the BPTTT and misapplying provisions of the Paris Convention. Additionally, Conrad contested the basis for the issuance of a preliminary injunction against its activities involving the trademark.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the appellate court, affirming that the infringement suit was distinct from the administrative case before the BPTTT. The question was not about the trademark's registrability but whether Conrad's actions constituted trademark infringement. The Court also confirmed that while a cancellation action rests with BPTTT, clai

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.