Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    G.R. No. 78298. January 30, 1989.) Wolverine Worldwide, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Honorable Court of Appeals and LOLITO P. CRUZ, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    Nikka Razcel Gloria
    This document summarizes a court case from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a petition by Wolverine Worldwide, Inc. to cancel the trademark registration of "HUSH PUPPIES" and a dog device held by Lolito P. Cruz. Wolverine had previously filed two petitions in 1973 to cancel the same trademarks, which were ruled in favor of Cruz's predecessor. The Director of Patents and the Court of Appeals affirmed these decisions. The Supreme Court here held that the present petition was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the previous judgments were final, involved the same subject matter and parties, and were decided on the merits. As the decisions were never appealed, they became settled law and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 78298. January 30, 1989.) Wolverine Worldwide, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Honorable Court of Appeals and LOLITO P. CRUZ, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    Nikka Razcel Gloria
    60 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a petition by Wolverine Worldwide, Inc. to cancel the trademark registration of "HUSH PUPPIES" and a dog device held by Lolito P. Cruz. Wolverine had previously filed two petitions in 1973 to cancel the same trademarks, which were ruled in favor of Cruz's predecessor. The Director of Patents and the Court of Appeals affirmed these decisions. The Supreme Court here held that the present petition was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the previous judgments were final, involved the same subject matter and parties, and were decided on the merits. As the decisions were never appealed, they became settled law and

    Original Description:

    For IPL case digest

    Original Title

    Ipl case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a petition by Wolverine Worldwide, Inc. to cancel the trademark registration of "HUSH PUPPIES" and a dog device held by Lolito P. Cruz. Wolverine had previously filed two petitions in 1973 to cancel the same trademarks, which were ruled in favor of Cruz's predecessor. The Director of Patents and the Court of Appeals affirmed these decisions. The Supreme Court here held that the present petition was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the previous judgments were final, involved the same subject matter and parties, and were decided on the merits. As the decisions were never appealed, they became settled law and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    60 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 78298. January 30, 1989.) Wolverine Worldwide, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Honorable Court of Appeals and LOLITO P. CRUZ, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    Nikka Razcel Gloria
    This document summarizes a court case from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a petition by Wolverine Worldwide, Inc. to cancel the trademark registration of "HUSH PUPPIES" and a dog device held by Lolito P. Cruz. Wolverine had previously filed two petitions in 1973 to cancel the same trademarks, which were ruled in favor of Cruz's predecessor. The Director of Patents and the Court of Appeals affirmed these decisions. The Supreme Court here held that the present petition was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the previous judgments were final, involved the same subject matter and parties, and were decided on the merits. As the decisions were never appealed, they became settled law and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No. 78298. January 30, 1989.

    ]
    WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE, INC., petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF
    APPEALS AND
    LOLITO P. CRUZ, respondents.

    FACTS: On February 8, 1984, the petitioner, a foreign corporation organized


    and existing under the laws of the United States, brought a petition before the
    Philippine Patent Office the cancellation of Certificate of Registration of the
    trademark HUSH PUPPIES and DOG DEVICE issued to the private
    respondent, a Filipino citizen.
    In support of its petition for cancellation, the petitioner alleged, inter alia, that it
    is the registrant of the internationally known trademark HUSH PUPPIES and
    the DEVICE of a Dog in the United States and in other countries which are
    members of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, that
    the goods sold by the private respondent, on the one hand, and by the
    petitioner, on the other hand, belong to the same class such that the private
    respondents use of the same trademark in the Philippines (which is a
    member of said Paris Convention) in connection with the goods he sells
    constitutes an act of unfair competition, as denied in the Paris Convention.
    Subsequently, the private respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the
    ground of res judicata, averring that in 1973, or more than ten years before
    this petition was filed, the same petitioner filed two petitions for cancellation,
    all of which involved the trademark HUSH PUPPIES and DEVICE, before the
    Philippine Patent Office. The Director of Patents had ruled in all three inter
    parties cases in favor of the private respondents predecessor-in-interest. The
    CA affirmed these decisions.
    Consequently, the Director of Patents denied the petition for cancellation. On
    appeal, the Court of Appeals at first set aside the Directors decision, however,
    upon reconsideration the latter was revived.

    ISSUE: Is the present petition for cancellation barred by res judicata?

    HELD: Yes. The Court has repeatedly held that for a judgment to be a bar to a
    subsequent case, the following requisites must concur: (1) it must be a final
    judgment; (2) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject
    matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there
    must be Identity between the two cases, as to parties, subject matter,
    and cause of action. Contrary to the petitioners assertion, the judgment in the
    previous cases involving respondents trademark registration had long since
    become final and executor. That Sec. 17 of Republic Act 166, also known as
    the Trademark Law, allows the cancellation of a registered trademark is not a
    valid premises for the petitioners proposition that a decision granting
    registration of a trademark cannot be imbued with the character of absolute
    finality as is required in res judicata. A judgment or order is final, as to give it
    the authority of res judicata, if it can no longer be modified by the court issuing
    it or by any other court.
    In the case at bar, the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the
    Director of Patents,in the cancellation cases filed in 1973, was never
    appealed to us. Consequently, when the period to appeal from the Court of
    Appeals to this Court lapsed, with no appeal having been perfected, the
    foregoing judgment denying cancellation of registration in the name of private
    respondents predecessor-in-interest but ordering cancellation of registration
    in the name of the petitioners predecessor-in-interest, became the settled law
    in the case. It must be stressed anew that, generally, the fundamental
    principle of res judicata applies to all cases and proceedings in whatever form
    they may be. We now expressly affirm that this principle applies, in the
    appropriate cases, to proceedings for cancellation of trademarks before
    the Philippine Patent. Undoubtedly, final decision, orders and resolutions, of
    the Director of Patents are clothed with a judicial character as they are, in fact,
    reviewable by the Court of Appeals and by the SC.

    You might also like