Case Summary (G.R. No. 190112)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Relevant filings and rulings include: respondent’s registration of “Isetann” and Flower Design (SR Nos. 4701 and 4714) and corporate registration in May 1980; petitioner’s petitions for cancellation docketed November 28, 1980; petitioner’s application for registration in the Philippines (Permanent Serial Nos. 52422, 52423) filed October 3, 1983; SEC decision processes culminating in conflicting rulings (Hearing Officer May 17, 1985; Commission reversal February 25, 1986; later Commission final denial September 10, 1987); Director of Patents dismissal of cancellation petitions January 24, 1986 (motion for reconsideration denied April 2, 1986); appellant’s late appeal to the Court of Appeals dismissed June 2, 1986 (reconsideration denied July 11, 1986); petitioner’s petition to the Supreme Court filed late and ultimately dismissed for tardiness after the Court considered and reaffirmed procedural rules.
Petitioner's Factual Contentions
Petitioner claims long and prior use of the mark “ISETAN” (first used November 5, 1936) and registration in Japan covering many classes. It alleges that respondent’s corporate name and trademark “Isetann” and Flower Design are essentially identical (save an additional “N”) and that respondent adopted the mark to free-ride on petitioner’s goodwill and reputation. Petitioner invoked international protection obligations under the Paris Convention.
Respondent's Factual Contentions
Isetann Department Store maintains it adopted “Isetann” (with suffix “-tann” explained as a Chinese-language reference to an altar) and used the name and Flower Design in the Philippines beginning in January 1979. Respondent registered its corporate name and mark in May 1980 and asserts continuous use in commerce in the Philippines with substantial promotional efforts that generated local goodwill independent of petitioner’s foreign reputation.
SEC Proceedings and Findings
Petitioner sought cancellation of the corporate name before the SEC (SEC Case No. 2051). The Hearing Officer denied the petition (May 17, 1985). The SEC Commission reversed that denial on February 25, 1986, directing respondent to amend its Articles of Incorporation; respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. On September 10, 1987 the Commission again reversed its earlier reversal and affirmed the Hearing Officer’s original denial, reasoning that petitioner’s mark had not been used in commerce in the Philippines and therefore had not acquired reputation or goodwill in the jurisdiction.
Director of Patents Decision
After notice and hearing, the Director of Patents dismissed the inter partes petitions for cancellation (Inter Partes Cases Nos. 1460 and 1461) in a joint decision dated January 24, 1986. The Director concluded petitioner failed to make out a case for cancellation and ordered respondent’s supplemental registrations to remain in force. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied April 2, 1986.
Intermediate Appellate Court Ruling
Petitioner appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which dismissed the appeal on June 2, 1986 on the ground that it was filed out of time. The court applied the applicable rules on appeal periods (Section 2 of Republic Act No. 5434 and related rules) and found the notice of appeal was filed beyond the prescriptive period after denial of reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration to the IAC was denied July 11, 1986.
Supreme Court Procedural Review and Ruling on Timeliness
The Supreme Court initially dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition as untimely but later granted reconsideration to examine equitable arguments. After full consideration the Court reaffirmed dismissal on procedural grounds: both the appeal to the Court of Appeals and the subsequent petition to the Supreme Court were filed late. The Court emphasized the jurisdictional nature of perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period and declined to relax procedural requirements in the absence of compelling equitable circumstances. The Court therefore declined to disturb the Director of Patents’ and Court of Appeals’ rulings.
Governing Legal Standards on Trademark Ownership and Use
The Court applied Philippine trademark law under Republic Act No. 166, as amended: registration and ownership require actual use in commerce in the Philippines (Sec. 2 requires use in commerce in the Philippines for at least two months before application; Sec. 2-A recognizes ownership acquired by actual use in trade). Jurisprudence cited (Sterling Products; Pagasa Industrial Corp.) confirms the rule that adoption without use does not confer exclusive rights; samples, advertising, or foreign use do not substitute for actual commerce in the Philippines. The principle of territoriality was also applied: protection secures the trade and goodwill in the particular territory where the mark is used. The Paris Convention does not by itself negate territoriality; international protection requires additional conditions such as the mark being internationally or well-known in the territory and used for the same or similar goods.
Application of Law to the Facts
The Court found substantial evidence that petitioner had never used its tradename or trademark in commerce in the Philippines, ha
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 190112)
Facts
- Petitioner: Kabushi Kaisha Isetan, a foreign corporation organized under Japanese law with business address at 14-1 Shinjuku, 3-Chrome, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan.
- Petitioner is the owner of the trademark "Isetan" and the "Young Leaves Design"; it alleges first use of the trademark Isetan on November 5, 1936.
- Petitioner explains the origin of the name "Isetan": "Ise" from "Iseya" (first name of the rice dealer in Kondo, Tokyo) and "Tan" from "Tanji Kosuge the First."
- Petitioner claims international business expansion from 1936 to 1974 and registration of "Isetan" and "Young Leaves Design" in Japan covering more than 34 classes of goods.
- Petitioner applied for registration in the Philippines on October 3, 1983 for "Isetan" and "Young Leaves Design" under Philippine Patent Office Permanent Serial Nos. 52422 and 52423.
- Private respondent: Isetann Department Store, Inc., a domestic Philippine corporation with business address at 423-430 Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila.
- Private respondent claims use of the word "Isetann" as part of its corporate name and on products (notably shirts in Joymart Department Store) sometime in January 1979.
- Private respondent explains the suffix "Tann" means an altar/place of offering in Chinese and was adopted to harmonize its corporate name with a corporate logo (two hands in a cup symbolizing offering to the Supreme Being for business blessing).
- Private respondent registered "Isetann Department Store, Inc." and "Isetann and Flower Design" with the Philippine Patent Office on May 30, 1980 and May 20, 1980 respectively (SR Reg. Nos. 4701 and 4714) and with the Bureau of Domestic Trade under Certificate of Registration No. 32020.
Petitioner’s Claims, Allegations and Legal Grounds
- Petitioner filed petitions for cancellation of respondent’s Certificates of Supplemental Registration Nos. SR-4714 and SR-4701 on November 28, 1980 (Inter Partes Cases Nos. 1460 and 1461).
- Primary allegations: except for an additional letter "N" in "Isetann," respondent’s mark is exactly the same as petitioner’s "ISETAN" and "Young Leaves" design; respondent registered a mark identical to petitioner’s, adopted a corporate name similar to petitioner’s, and acted with illegal and immoral intent to profit from petitioner’s established goodwill and reputation, causing irreparable injury.
- Petitioner alleged overlap in channels of trade that would mislead ordinary people into believing respondent’s products originated from, were associated with, manufactured, sold, or sponsored by petitioner.
- Petitioner invoked the Paris Convention (March 20, 1883) for the Protection of Industrial Property, arguing that Philippines’ adherence obligates protection of trademarks of nationals of other member countries.
Evidence Presented and Admissions by Petitioner’s Witnesses
- Petitioner’s witnesses (Mayumi Takayama and Hieoya Murakami) admitted:
- The petitioner’s company is not licensed to do business in the Philippines.
- The petitioner’s trademark is not registered under Philippine law.
- The petitioner’s trademark is not being used on products in trade, manufacture, or business in the Philippines.
- Atty. Villasanta, petitioner’s witness, admitted petitioner never engaged in promotional activities in the Philippines to popularize its trademark because it was not doing business in the Philippines.
- Petitioner’s claimed advertising expenditures referred to promotions in Japan or other foreign places; no promotional activities in the Philippines were undertaken per petitioner’s own admission.
- Evidence showed extensive promotional activities and continuous use in commerce by the private respondent in the Philippines, from which respondent established local goodwill.
Proceedings Before Administrative Bodies (SEC and Director of Patents)
- SEC proceedings:
- Petitioner filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission to cancel "ISETAN" as part of respondent’s registered corporate name (SEC Case No. 2051).
- On May 17, 1985, the SEC Hearing Officer (Atty. Joaquin C. Garaygay) denied the petition.
- On appeal, the SEC Commission reversed the Hearing Officer’s decision on February 25, 1986, directing respondent to amend its Articles of Incorporation within 30 days from finality.
- Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on April 15, 1986.
- On September 10, 1987, the Commission reversed its February 25, 1986 decision, thereby affirming the Hearing Officer’s May 17, 1985 decision and holding that petitioner’s trademark/tradename had not been used in commerce in the Philippines and thus had not acquired reputation or goodwill deserving protection.
- The SEC’s later decision denying the petition was submitted by respondent as evidence in the Director of Patents proceedings.
- Director of Patents proceedings:
- On January 24, 1986, after notice and hearing, the Director of Patents rendered a joint decision dismissing Inter Partes Cases Nos. 1460 and 1461, holding petitioner failed to make out a case of cancellation.
- Dispositive excerpt: certificates of respondent (SR-4714 issued May 20, 1980) were ordered to remain in full force and effect; corresponding applications were given due course and records transmitted to the Trademark Examining Division.
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration on February 21, 1986; the motion was denied on April 2, 1986.
Appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC / Court of Appeals) and Subsequent Procedural Posture
- Petitioner appealed the Director of Patents’ adverse decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court (docketed AC-G.R. SP No. 008873).
- On June 2, 1986, the IAC dismissed the appeal on the ground it was filed out of time.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the IAC was denied in a resolution dated July 11, 1986.
- Petitioner received a copy of the IAC’s resolution denying reconsideration on July 17, 1986; under the applicable appeal rules, petitioner had up to August 1, 1986 to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
- Petitioner posted its petition on August 2, 1986 and it was received by the Supreme Court on August 8, 1986; the petition was therefore filed late.
Supreme Court Procedural History and Final Action
- The petition for review on certiorari was initially dismissed by the Supreme Court in a resolution dated July 8, 1987 on the ground it was filed fourteen (14) days late.
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, urging equitable grounds and the existence of a strong meritorious case.
- On motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court gave the petition due course in a resolution dated May 19, 1988 so as to examine potential denial of substantive justice; parties were required to submit memoranda.
- After submission and consideration, the Supreme Court reiterated its July 8, 1987 resolution dismissing the petition.
- The Supreme Court concluded there were no compelling equitable considerations warranting relaxation of technical rules (citing Serrano v. Court of Appeals and Orata v.