Scribd
Upload
270 views2 pages

Puma vs. IAC

This document summarizes a case between Puma, a German corporation, and IAC regarding trademark and patent infringement. Puma filed a complaint and obtained a temporary restraining order preventing IAC from using Puma's trademarks. The RTC denied IAC's motion to dismiss, but the CA dismissed, finding Puma did not meet requirements to file as a foreign corporation. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that as a widely known foreign corporation, Puma had legal capacity to sue to protect its trademarks in the Philippines based on the Paris Convention.

Uploaded by

Enzo Regondola
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
270 views2 pages

Puma vs. IAC

This document summarizes a case between Puma, a German corporation, and IAC regarding trademark and patent infringement. Puma filed a complaint and obtained a temporary restraining order preventing IAC from using Puma's trademarks. The RTC denied IAC's motion to dismiss, but the CA dismissed, finding Puma did not meet requirements to file as a foreign corporation. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that as a widely known foreign corporation, Puma had legal capacity to sue to protect its trademarks in the Philippines based on the Paris Convention.

Uploaded by

Enzo Regondola
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Puma v.

IAC

Pet: foreign corp organized in Germany

- Filed complaint for trademark/patent infringement with writ of prel inj

Prior to this, cases were pending in PPO for opposition by Puma of the registration of
Puma and Device in the principal register.

RTC issued TRO restraiing the resp and the Dir of Patents from using PUMA or any
reproduction thereof

Resp MTD for failure to state coa; no legal personality, and litis pendentia

RTC: denied MTD, granted writ of injunction

CA: dismiss

- Failure to complywith reqs of sec.21-A which are that the TM of the suing corp
must be registered in the PH or be assignee thereof, and that there is
reciprocal treatment to PH corporations by law or convention by the country
of origin of the foreign corp.

- ITC, recirprocity was not alleged in the complaint

Pets argue that they did comply

- Complaint alleged that it is not doing biz in PH

- Sec 21-A does not mandatorily require that the reciprocity must be pleaded

- Paris Convention supplies the reciprocity arrangement, and this convention


forms part of the law of the land

SC: Pets correct

- In La Chemise Lacoste v. Fernandez, SC said that even if true that capacity to


sue ws not alleged, pet may still maintain the action since a foreign corp not
doing biz is not reqd to have license to sue before PH courts for infringement
of TM and unfair competition.

- Widely and favorably known mark in the PH gives them legal right to
maintain action in PH restraining residents and inhabitants from organizing a
corp bearing the same name as the foreign corp.

- PH registrants are askes to surrender marks which conflict with internationally


known trdemarks to avoid suits by their foreign owners this is a clear
manifestation of policy of cooperation and amity with all nations, a legally
binding obligation founded on paca sunt servanda
- Paris Convention accords nationals of member natons against infringement
and unfair compet, as seen in RA 166 sec 37

Therefore, they had legal capacity to sue

REVERSED CA

You might also like