Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Santos
MIGHTY CORPORATION vs. ENJ GALLO WINERS (GR No 154342, July 14, 2004) This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to annul, reverse, and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City which held petitioners liable for and permanently enjoined them from, committing trademark infringement and unfair competition, and the resolution denying their motion for reconsideration and the aforesaid RTC Makati decision itself. Facts: Respondent Gallo Winery is a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines but organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, United States of America (U.S.), which produces different kinds of wines and brandy products and sells them in many countries under different registered trademarks, including the GALLO and ERNEST & JULIO GALLO wine trademarks. On the other hand, petitioners Mighty Corporation and La Campana and their sister company, Tobacco Industries of the Philippines (Tobacco Industries), are engaged in the cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of tobacco products for which they have been using the GALLO cigarette trademark since 1973. Tobacco Industries assigned the GALLO cigarette trademark to La Campana which applied for trademark registration in the Philippine Patent Office. On July 17, 1985, the National Library issued Certificate of Copyright Registration No. 5834 for La Campanas lifetime copyright claim over GALLO cigarette labels. Subsequently, La Campana authorized Mighty Corporation to manufacture and sell cigarettes bearing the GALLO trademark. Petitioners claim that GALLO cigarettes have been sold in the Philippines since 1973, initially by Tobacco Industries, then by La Campana and finally by Mighty Corporation. On the other hand, although the GALLO wine trademark was registered in the Philippines in 1971, respondents claim that they first introduced and sold the GALLO and ERNEST & JULIO GALLO wines in the Philippines circa 1974 within the then U.S. military facilities only. By 1979, they had expanded their Philippine market through authorized distributors and independent outlets. Respondents claim that they first learned about the existence of GALLO cigarettes in the latter part of 1992 when an Andresons employee saw such cigarettes on display with GALLO wines in a Davao supermarket wine cellar section. Respondents sued petitioner in the Makati RTC for trademark and tradename infringement and unfair competition, with a prayer for damages and preliminary injunction. They claimed that petitioners adopted the GALLO trademark to ride on Gallo Winery's GALLO and ERNEST & JULIO GALLO trademarks' establihsed reputation and popularity, thus causing confusion, depection, and mistake on the part of the purchasing public who had always associated GALLO and ERNEST & JULIO GALLO trademarks with Gallo Winery's wine. The Makati RTC denied respondent's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction holding that respondent's GALLO trademark registration certificate covered wines only, that respondents' wines and petitioners' cigarettes were not related goods and respondents failed to prove material damage or great irreparable injury as required by Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the Order of the lower court denying respondent Maxicorp, Inc., motion to quash the search warrant that the RTC issued against Maxicorp. Facts: The antecedent facts are as follow: NBI Agent Samiano filed several application for search warrant against Maxicorp for Violation of Section 29 of PD 49 and Article 189 of the RPC. After conducting preliminary examination of the applicant and his witnesses, the RTC issued a search warrant against Maxicorp. Armed with a search warrant, NBI agents conducted a search on Maxicorp premises and seized properties fitting the description in the search warrant. Maxicorp filed a motion to quash search warrants alleging there was no probable cause for their issuance and the search warrant is a general warrant. RTC denied the Motion as well as the MR. CA reversed the lower court ruling. It ruled that NBI Samiano failed to present during preliminary examination that Maxicorp produced and sold the counterfeit products and that the receipt presented as evidence that he bought the products from Maxicorp was in the name of a certain Joel Diaz. Hence, this case. Issues: Whether or not the Petition is defective because it failed to raise question of law. Whether or not petitioner has legal personality to file this petition as it is the OSG as representative of the People of the Philippines is the proper party in a criminal case. Whether or not there is probable cause to issue search warrant. Whether or not the search warrant is in a form of a general warrant. Held: A petition for review under Rule 45 should cover question of laws. Question of facts is not reviewable. As a rule, finding of facts of the CA are final and conclusive and this court will not review them on appeal subject on the exception when the finding of the CA conflicts with the trial court. In this case, it falls under one of the exceptions, the finding of the CA conflicts with the trial court. In Columbia Pictures Entertainment vs. CA, it ruled that the petitioner could argue the case in lieu of OSG if there is grave error committed by the lower court or lack of due process ( to avoid a situation where the complainant find itself powerless to pursue a remedy due to circumstances beyond its control. Probable cause reasonable belief that an offense has been committed. The testimonies of the two witnesses and the object and documentary evidence are sufficient to establish the existence of probable cause.