Case Summary (G.R. No. 221732)
Key Dates
– July 4, 1994: Respondent’s initial use of “Lavandera Ko”
– 1995: Opening of Respondent’s Makati City laundry store; filing of IPO registration by Petitioner (June 5, 1995)
– March 17, 1997: National Library issues copyright certificate to Respondent over the mark
– November 13, 1998: Department of Trade and Industry business name registration by Respondent
– October 18, 2001: IPO registration of the mark in favor of Petitioner
– June 10, 2004: RTC issues writ of preliminary injunction against Petitioner
– September 23, 2013: RTC dismisses petition for injunction and lifts preliminary injunction
– May 7, 2015: Court of Appeals dismisses Petitioner’s appeal for technical non-compliance
– December 4, 2015: CA denies motion for reconsideration
– August 23, 2017: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date after 1990)
– Republic Act No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines)
• Part III: Trademarks, service marks, trade names (Sections 121.1, 165.2)
• Part IV: Copyrights (Sections 171.1, 172.1)
– Rules of Court on appeals (Rules 44, 50) and judicial notice (Rule 129)
Procedural History
- Respondent files petition in the RTC for injunction, unfair competition, copyright infringement, and cancellation of Petitioner’s trademark; RTC grants preliminary injunction in 2004.
- After trial, RTC rules neither party owns the mark, finding it originated in a 1942 folk song by Santiago S. Suarez; dismisses petition and lifts injunction in 2013.
- Petitioner appeals to the Court of Appeals; CA dismisses the appeal for failure to comply with Rule 44(Section 13) and Rule 50 requirements.
- Petitioner files a Rule 45 petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
A. Whether the CA properly dismissed the appeal on purely technical grounds.
B. Whether a service mark is equivalent to a copyright.
C. Whether Petitioner is the owner of the mark “Lavandera Ko.”
D. Whether an internet article may supplant actual evidence submitted by the parties.
Supreme Court Ruling
- Technical compliance with the Rules of Court must not defeat the ends of justice. The CA’s strict dismissal on procedural lapses was improper given Petitioner’s reasonable attempt at compliance and the novelty of issues. A liberal construction of procedural rules is warranted to decide appeals on their merits.
- A trade or service name is distinct from a copyright. Under R.A. 8293 Part III, “Lavandera Ko” as used in a laundry service is a service name or mark, governed by trademark and trade-name protections (Section 165.2), not by copyright provisions (Part IV).
- The RTC’s reliance on an internet article to judicially notice the song’s origin was erroneous. Judicial notice requires w
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 221732)
Facts
- Respondent Roberto U. Juan began using the name and mark “Lavandera Ko” in his laundry business on July 4, 1994, and opened a store in Makati City in 1995.
- On March 17, 1997, the National Library issued Roberto a Certificate of Copyright over the name and mark “Lavandera Ko.”
- The laundry enterprise expanded through multiple franchise outlets in Metro Manila and other provinces, leading to the incorporation of Laundromatic Corporation in 1997.
- “Lavandera Ko” was registered as a business name with the Department of Trade and Industry on November 13, 1998.
- Roberto discovered that his brother, petitioner Fernando U. Juan, had filed for registration of the same name and mark with the Intellectual Property Office on June 5, 1995, which was granted on October 18, 2001, and that Fernando was selling franchises under that mark.
- Roberto filed with the Regional Trial Court (Branch 149, Makati City) a petition for injunction, unfair competition, copyright and trademark infringement, and cancellation of registrations, praying for a TRO and preliminary injunction.
- The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction on June 10, 2004. After Roberto’s death on July 21, 2008, his son Christian Juan was substituted as party plaintiff.
- Following pre-trial (July 13, 2010) and the presentation of evidence, the RTC on September 23, 2013 dismissed Roberto’s petition, ruling that neither party owned the mark “Lavandera Ko” because it originated in a 1942 musical composition by Santiago S. Suarez. The preliminary injunction was lifted, and the National Library and IPO registrations were ordered canceled.
Procedural History
- Fernando appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), ar