This preview shows page 488 - 491 out of 512 pages.
into its jurisprudence and procedural rules the viability of an action forenforcement of foreign judgment, as well as the requisites for such validenforcement, as derived from internationally accepted doctrines.488
300.Sta.Ana v. Maliwat24 SCRA 1021; August 31, 1968FACTS:In 1962, Florentino Maliwat sought to register the trademark "FLORMANN"used on shirts, pants, jackets and shoes for ladies men and children. Heclaimed its first use in commerce in 1955. Also in the same year (1962), JoseP. Sta. Ana (Petitioner) filed an application for the registration of thetrademark "FLORMEN" (used in ladies and children shoes). He claimed itsfirst use in commerce in 1959. Due to the confusing similarity, the Director ofthe Patent Office ordered an interference. Maliwat's application was thengranted due to his prior adoption and use while that of Sta. Ana was denied.It was stipulated by the parties that 'Flormann' was used as a trademark in1953 and Maliwat used it on shoes in 1962.ISSUE:Was there any trademark infringement committed?RULING: YES. Both products of the parties have the same descriptive properties, thusits trademark must be protected.The law does not require that the goods of the previous user and the lateuser of the same mark should possess the same descriptive properties orshould fall into the same categories in order to bar the latter from registeringhis mark. The meat of the matter is the likelihood of confusion, mistake ordeception upon the purchase of the goods of the parties. Herein, thesimilarity of the mark 'FLORMANN' and the name 'FLORMEN', as well as thelikelihood of confusion is admitted. As such, Maliwat as prior adopter has abetter right to use the mark.489
301. State Investment House, Inc. vs. Citibank, et al203 SCRA 9; October 17, 1991FACTS:Consolidated Mines, Inc. (CMI) obtained loans from Citibank, Bank of Americaand HSBC, all foreign corporations but with branches in the Philippines.Meanwhile, State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI) and State Financing Center,Inc. (SFCI), also creditors of CMI, filed collection suits against the latter withwrits of preliminary attachment. Subsequently, the three banks jointly filedwith the court a petition for involuntary insolvency of CMI. SHI and SFCIopposed the petition on the ground that the petitioners are not residentcreditors in contemplation of the Insolvency Law.ISSUE:Whether or not a foreign corporation with a branch in the Philippinesand doing business therein can be considered a residentHELD:Foreign corporations duly licensed to do business in the Philippines areconsidered “residents” of the Philippines, as the word is understood in Sec.20 of the Insolvency Law, authorizing at least three resident creditors of thePhilippines to file a petition to declare a corporation insolvent. The Tax Codedeclares that the term “resident foreign corporation applies to foreigncorporation engaged in trade or business within the Philippines” asdistinguished from a “non-resident foreign corporation” which is not engaged
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 512 pages?
Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Trial court