Case Summary (G.R. No. L-33773)
Background and Initial Proceedings
On August 3, 1956, Godofredo L. Lorenzana filed for registration of the trademark "LORENZANA & DESIGN" with the Philippine Patent Office, asserting its use in relation to his bagoong and patis business since 1940. A Certificate of Registration (No. SR-275) was granted on September 3, 1959. However, on March 21, 1962, his brother Solomon filed for its cancellation, claiming that the trademark belonged to the estate of their deceased father, Felipe Lorenzana. After several hearings, the Director of Patents ruled in favor of Godofredo in Decision No. 443, dated June 26, 1967.
Appeal and Res Judicata Argument
Solomon's appeal against Decision No. 443 was dismissed due to a late filing. In a subsequent application on September 8, 1967, Godofredo sought registration of the trademark "LORENZANA" in the Principal Register, which faced opposition from his siblings. Godofredo moved to dismiss the opposition citing res judicata based on the previous decision. However, on February 14, 1969, the Director of Patents dismissed the opposition, leading to an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Decision
On May 18, 1971, the Court of Appeals found that the Director of Patents had mistakenly applied the principle of res judicata. The appellate court determined that there was no identity of subject matter and cause of action between the two inter partes cases. The court highlighted the fundamental differences in the nature of the registrations sought under the Supplemental Register and the Principal Register under Republic Act No. 166.
Key Distinctions Between Registrations
The distinction between the two types of registrations was emphasized: registration in the Principal Register confers presumption of validity and ownership rights, while the Supplemental Register does not afford the same benefits. The analysis illustrated that ownership claims and registration rights are treated differently under the law, underscoring the unique nature of each proceeding.
Lack of Identity of Parties and Privity
The Court of Appeals further clarified that the parties in Inter Partes Case No. 263 and Inter Partes Case No. 485 were not identical, which negated the application of res judicata. It ruled that Solomon could not bind the other respondents as privies in the earlier case since their claims did not derive from his actions or interests in Inter Partes Case No. 263.
Supreme Court Ruling
Upon petitioning for review, Godofredo reiterated that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the res judicata argument. However, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-33773)
Case Overview
- The case pertains to a petition for review on certiorari of a decision made by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 43346-R.
- The Court of Appeals set aside a prior decision of the Director of Patents and reinstated opposition proceedings concerning the registration of the trademark "LORENZANA & DESIGN".
Background Facts
- On August 3, 1956, Godofredo L. Lorenzana filed an application for the registration of the trademark "LORENZANA & DESIGN" with the Philippine Patent Office, claiming usage since 1940.
- The trademark was granted a Certificate of Registration (No. SR-275) on September 3, 1959.
- On March 21, 1962, Solomon L. Lorenzana sought the cancellation of this registration, asserting that the trademark belonged to their deceased father, Felipe Lorenzana, as part of the estate.
- After extensive hearings lasting over five years, the Director of Patents ruled in favor of Godofredo, affirming his entitlement to the trademark in Decision No. 443 on June 26, 1967.
- This decision was later contested by Solomon, but the petition was dismissed due to a late filing.
Subsequent Proceedings
- On September 8, 1967, Godofredo applied for registration of the trademark "LORENZANA" in the Principal Register, which was opposed on August 21, 1968, by multiple respondents, all children