Case Summary (G.R. No. 164321)
Factual Background
SKECHERS, U.S.A., INC. registered the trademark “SKECHERS” (Reg. No. 63364, Class 25) on 30 August 1996 and the stylized “S” within an oval (Reg. No. 4-1996-110182, Class 25) on 12 July 2000 for footwear and related clothing. Petitioner was not doing business in the Philippines but sought to protect its intellectual property. In March 2002 petitioner retained Zetetic Far East, Inc. to investigate alleged importation and distribution by respondent of unauthorized footwear bearing marks confusingly similar to petitioner’s trademarks.
Undercover Purchases and Complaint to NBI
A Zetetic market researcher, Alvin Ambion, visited respondent’s warehouse at Ed & Joe’s Commercial Arcade and an outlet in Baclaran in April and May 2002. Ambion purchased samples of rubber shoes bearing the mark “Strong” with an “S” logo on April 12 and purchased additional pairs with NBI Special Investigator Carlos N. Borromeo III on May 21, 2002. Petitioner’s counsel then filed a letter complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation asking for assistance to stop alleged illegal importation, manufacture, and sale of counterfeit goods.
Application and Issuance of Search Warrants
On 11 June 2002 Special Investigator Borromeo, with Ambion as witness, applied at Branch 24, RTC, Manila for search warrants to execute seizures for trademark infringement under Sec. 155 in relation to Sec. 170 of Republic Act No. 8293. After in camera examination of the applicant and witness, the trial court found probable cause and issued Search Warrant Nos. 02-2827 and 02-2828 on the same day. NBI operatives executed the warrants that afternoon and seized thousands of pairs of rubber shoes bearing the “S” logo and several documents.
Trial Court Proceedings and Motion to Quash
Respondents filed a Comment and a Motion to Quash the search warrants, arguing absence of confusing similarity between petitioner’s trademarks and respondents’ “Strong” footwear. After receiving and examining the samples and other evidence, the trial court granted the Motion to Quash Search Warrant No. 02-2827 by Order dated 7 November 2002 and directed return of seized items. The court reasoned that an ordinary prudent purchaser would not likely be deceived because notable differences existed: the respondents’ “S” was not enclosed in petitioner’s oval device, the word “Strong” appeared conspicuously on various parts of the shoes, hang tags and labels bore “Strong,” and price differentials made confusion unlikely. The court applied a holistic comparison rather than a piecemeal focus on the letter “S.”
Court of Appeals Review
Petitioner sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals, asserting grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in quashing the search warrant and in effectively deciding the merits of trademark infringement. The Court of Appeals denied the petition on 17 November 2003. The CA agreed with the trial court that the holistic test best suited the case and found no colorable imitation. The CA emphasized that the ordinary purchaser of footwear is an intelligent buyer who exercises care, particularly for more valuable items, that the letter “S” appears in many marks and is not uniquely identifiable to petitioner, and that respondents’ prominent use of the word “STRONG” and other differences reduced the likelihood of confusion.
Supreme Court Issues Presented
The Supreme Court considered whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying relief and whether the trial court exceeded or abused its jurisdiction by quashing a search warrant after initial issuance. A subsidiary issue concerned whether a trial court, in determining probable cause for a search warrant, may examine whether an offense under Sec. 155 exists without prejudicing the merits of any subsequent criminal prosecution.
Petitioner’s Contentions
SKECHERS, U.S.A., INC. argued that the CA erred by resolving defenses and deciding trademark infringement issues in a warrant validity contest. Petitioner contended that the solitary triable issue in a search-warrant review is the existence of probable cause and that the CA improperly addressed the merits, thereby usurping functions reserved for criminal proceedings.
Respondents’ Contentions
Respondents maintained that the CA permissibly considered whether trademark infringement existed because that determination was central to whether probable cause supported the warrant. Respondents further argued that the trial court properly quashed the warrant after reevaluating evidence and samples, and that such correction of an initial error fell within the court’s inherent power to issue and to quash warrants.
Legal Analysis and Reasoning
The Court reiterated that the power to issue search warrants rests with trial judges as an exercise of judicial function and that that power includes the authority to quash warrants already issued. The Court observed that a judge may change his initial finding after re-evaluating evidence and that there is no fixed rule for determining probable cause because the assessment depends substantially upon the judge’s evaluation. Nevertheless, the judge must not disregard facts or reason. In deciding probable cause the court must resolve whether an offense exists to justify issuance or quashal of a warrant; thus, touching on issues that coincide with defenses or elements of the substantive offense is unavoidable and permissible at the warrant stage.
Application to the Present Case
The Court found that the trial court initially issued the warrants after in camera examination but later reversed its finding upon further appreciation of the comparative evidence—samples of petitioner’s Skechers goods and respondents’ Strong shoes. The trial court concluded that respondents’ use of the symbol “S” did not constitute a colorable imitation of petitioner’s registered mark in light of prominent differences and the overall appearance of the products. The CA affirmed the trial court’s judgmental call and declined to substitute its own view because certiorari is not a substitute f
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 164321)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner was SKECHERS, U.S.A., INC., a foreign corporation asserting registered trademark rights in the Philippines.
- Respondents included Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corporation and various trade names and persons allegedly operating the warehouse and retail outlet at Ed & Joe’s Commercial Arcade and Baclaran.
- Petitioner-Intervenor was TRENDWORKS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, which joined the litigation at the appellate stage.
- The case originated from an application for search warrants before Branch 24, Regional Trial Court, Manila, by NBI Special Investigator Carlos N. Borromeo III.
- The RTC issued Search Warrant Nos. 02-2827 and 02-2828 and later quashed Search Warrant No. 02-2827 in an Order dated 7 November 2002 and ordered return of seized items.
- The RTC denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration by Order dated 6 March 2003.
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, which the CA denied on 17 November 2003.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, which resolved the matter in the decision under consideration.
Key Factual Allegations
- Petitioner registered the mark "SKECHERS" under Registration No. 63364, Class 25, on 30 August 1996 and the mark "S" (within an oval design) under Registration No. 4-1996-110182, Class 25, on 12 July 2000, and had a pending application for an "S" and design for similar goods.
- Petitioner engaged Zetetic Far East, Inc. to investigate alleged importation and sale of counterfeit products at respondents’ premises in March 2002.
- Investigators purchased sample rubber shoes bearing the "Strong" name and an "S" logo on 12 April 2002 and 21 May 2002 as part of the inquiry.
- On 11 June 2002, the NBI applied for and obtained search warrants at Branch 24, RTC, Manila, to enforce alleged infringements under Republic Act No. 8293.
- The simultaneous searches seized from the warehouse 71 boxes of 36 pairs each (2,556 pairs) and 147 boxes of 24 pairs each (3,528 pairs) bearing an "S" logo, six pages of documents, and from the outlet 295 pairs and five individual shoes bearing the "S" logo.
- Respondents filed motions to quash, and thereafter the RTC held hearings and compared sample Skechers products against respondents’ Strong products.
Statutory Framework
- The prosecution and warrant applications invoked Section 155 of Republic Act No. 8293 defining acts constituting trademark infringement and remedies.
- The potential criminal sanctions were governed by Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293, prescribing imprisonment and fines for infringement.
- The special civil action for certiorari issues were raised under Rule 65, Rules of Court, and the Supreme Court review proceeded under Rule 45, Rules of Court.
- The Court relied on constitutional grant of judicial power to issue search warrants as anchored in Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution as cited in supporting authorities.
Issues Presented
- Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in quashing Search Warrant No. 02-2827.
- Whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its authority in affirming the RTC’s quashal while addressing the merits of trademark infringement.
- Whether there was probable cause to issue the search warrant for alleged trademark infringement under RA 8293.
Contentions of the Parties
- Petitioner contended that the CA erred by deciding the merits of trademark infringement in a certiorari proceeding where the sole triable issue was the existence of probable cause to issue a search warrant and that the CA thereby committed grave abuse.
- Respondents contended that the CA properly considered trademark infringement because the issue was raised in the certiorari petition and that the RTC was correct to quash the warrant after re-evaluating evidence and finding no basis