Posted in Mercantile Law case digests

Elidad C. Kho vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 115758 (March 19, 2002)

FACTS:

 Petitioner‘s allegations are that they are doing business under the name and style of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory, registered owner of Chin Chun Su and oval facial cream container/case, and alleges that she also has patent rights on Chin Chun Su and Device and Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream after purchasing the same from Quintin Cheng, the registered owner thereof in the supplemental register of the Philippine Patent Office and that Summerville advertised and sold petitioner’s cream products under the brand name Chin Chun Su, in similar containers that petitioner uses, thereby misleading the public, and resulting in the decline in the petitioner’s business sales and income; and, that the respondents should be enjoined from allegedly infringing on the copyrights and patents of the petitioner.
Continue reading “Elidad C. Kho vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 115758 (March 19, 2002)”

Advertisements
Posted in Mercantile Law case digests

PEARL & DEAN (PHIL.), INC. vs SHOEMART, INC GR No. 148222 (August 15,2003)

FACTS:

          Pearl and Dean is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of advertising display units referred to as light boxes and these light boxes were marketed under the trademark Poster Ads. Pearl and Dean entered into a contract with Shoemart, Inc. for the lease and installation of the light boxes in SM North Edsa. However, due to construction constraints, Shoemart, Inc offered as an alternative SM Makati and SM Cubao.

          After Pearl and Dean’s contract was rescinded, exact copies of its light boxes were installed in various SM malls, fabricated by Metro Industrial Services and later by EYD Rainbow Advertising Corporation. Pearl and Dean sent a letter to Shoemart and its sister company, North Edsa Marketing to cease using the light boxes and to remove them from the malls, and demanded the discontinued used of the trademark “Poster Ads”.

          Unsatisfied with the compliance of its demands, Pearl and Dean sued Shoemart which was ruled by the trial court in their favor. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. Continue reading “PEARL & DEAN (PHIL.), INC. vs SHOEMART, INC GR No. 148222 (August 15,2003)”

Posted in Mercantile Law case digests

NIELSON & CO. INC. VS. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. (GR. No. L-21601; December 28, 1968)

FACTS:

            On January 30, 1937, the parties have entered into an operating agreement wherein Nielson & Co. would operate and manage the mining properties owned by Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. for a period of five years. Before the lapse of the five year period, the parties have renewed the contract for another five years with modifications made by Lepanto on the management fee.

On its modified contract Nielson will receive (1) 10% of the dividends declared and paid, when and as paid during the period of the contract and at the end of each year, (2) 10% of any depletion reserve that may set up, and (3) 10% of any amount expended during the year out of surplus earnings for capital account. Continue reading “NIELSON & CO. INC. VS. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. (GR. No. L-21601; December 28, 1968)”

Posted in Mercantile Law case digests

Sasot vs. People GR No. 143193 (June 29,2005)

FACTS:

          The National Bureau of Investigation conducted an investigation pursuant to a complaint filed by the NBA Properties, Inc. against petitioners for possible violation of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code on unfair competition. Based on the report from the NBI, they have conducted two investigations due to the petitioners’ alleged participation in the manufacture, printing, sale and distribution of counterfeit “NBA” garment products, which led to the search and seizure of several items from petitioner’s establishment.  Continue reading “Sasot vs. People GR No. 143193 (June 29,2005)”