G.R. No. 188526, November 11, 2013 CENTURY CHINESE MEDICINE CO., et !., Petitioners v. "EO"#E O$ THE "HI#I""INES %ND #ING N% #%U, Respondent ,
.
PERALTA, J.:
Facts: Respondent Ling Na Lau, doing business under Worldwide Pharmacy, is the sole distributor and registered trademark owner of TP !"L T#!# $ %"&'(" F ) L")F papaya whitening soap as shown by a (erti*cate of Registration issued to her by the 'ntellectual Property +ce 'P- for a period of ten years from )ugust ./, .001# n No2ember 3, .004, Lau5s representati2e, Ping Na Lau Ping-, re6uested the N7' for assistance for an in2estigation on se2eral drugstores which were selling count counterf erfeit eit white whitenin ning g papaya papaya soaps soaps bearin bearing g the genera generall appear appearanc ance e of their their products# )gent Furing of the N7' assigned to the case e8ecuted an a+da2it stating that they were able to buy whitening soaps bearing the mentioned trademark from a list of drugstores which included herein petitioners# ) search warrant was then issued by the RT( 7ranch 9/1, akati, against petitioners for 2iolations of ;ections 9<= and 944, both in relation to ;ection 930 of Republic )ct R)- No# =.>1, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines# Philippines # ;ection 9<=, in relation to ;ection 930, penali?es unfair competition@ while ;ection 944, in relation to ;ection 930, punishes trademark infringement# Petitioners then collecti2ely *led their otion to Auash the ;earch Warrants conten contendin ding g that that their their iss issua uance nces s 2iolat 2iolated ed the the rule rule agains againstt forum forum shoppi shopping@ ng@ that that 7enBamin Cu Cu- is the sole owner and distributor of the product known as DTPE !"L@ and there was a preBudicial preBudicial 6uestion posed in (i2il (ase No# 04E4/3/3 *led by Cu Cu against respondent respondent for damages due to infringement of trademarkGtradename, trademarkGtradename, unfa unfair ir comp compet etit itio ion n with with pray prayer er for for the the imme immedi diat ate e issu issuan ance ce of a temp tempor orar ary y restraining order andGor preliminary prohibitory inBunction# 'ssue: Whet Whethe herr or not not the the oti otion on to Auas Auash h the the ;ear ;earch ch Warra arrant nts s sh shou ould ld be sustained# Ruling: No# No# The The appl applic icat atio ions ns for for the the issu issuan ance ce of the the assa assail iled ed sear search ch warr warran ants ts applicat applications ions concern concern the trademark trademark TP !"L T#!# $ %"&'(" %"&'(" F ) L")F# Pri2ate Pri2ate respond respondent ent was issued a (erti*cat (erti*cate e of Registrat egistration ion No# /E.000E00>==9 /E.000E00>==9 of said tradem trademark ark on )u )ugus gustt ./, .001 .001 by the 'ntell 'ntellect ectua uall Prop Propert erty y +ce, +ce, and is thus thus considered the lawful holder of the said trademark# 7eing the registrant and the
holder of the same, pri2ate respondent had the authority to enforce enforce and protect her intellectual property property rights o2er it# Further, said applications for the search warrants were granted after by Hudge Laguilles after e8amining under oath the applicant )gent Furing of the N7' and his witnesses Ping Na Lau and Hunayd R# 'smael# 't is therefore clear that the re6uisites for the issuance of the search warrants had been complied with and that there is probable cause to belie2e that an oIense had been committed by petitioners against respondent, as holder of the trademark TP !"L T#!# T#!# $ %"&'(" F ) L")F# Further, at the time the applications for the issuance of the search warrants, (i2il (ase No# AE04E4/3/3 which the petitioners contend that a preBudicial 6uestion was raised, on Hune 90, .004, because of the pendency of a case in2ol2ing the same issues issues and parties before before the 'P# 'P# )nd before before the applicat applications ions for the issuance issuance of the assailed search warrants on No2ember .9, .004, the 'P had issued a writ of preliminary preliminary inBunction against Cu Cu ordering him and his company to cease and desist using the trademark DTP !"L T#!# $ %"&'(" F ) L")F or any colorable imitation thereof on Papaya whitening soaps they manufacture, sell, andGor oIer for sale# Petitioners, ha2ing admitted that they ha2e deri2ed their TP !"L products from Cu, are noti*ed of such inBunction as it was published in The Philippine Star newspaper newspaper on ctober 10, .004 and were therefore enBoined from selling the same# ore importantly, during the pendency of petitioners5 motion to 6uash in the RT(, a compromise agreement between respondent and Cu was appro2ed by the 'P, stating, among others, that Cu Cu acknowledge that e8clusi2e right of Lau o2er the subBect trademark for use on papaya whitening soap as e2idenced by the (erti*cate of Registration and that Cu and his company now undertake to 2oluntarily cease and desist from using the aforesaid tradename and trademark, and further undertake not to manufacture, sell and distribute and otherwise compete with complainant, now and at anytime in the future# Therefore, Therefore, respondent, respondent, as owner of such registered registered trademark has the right to the issuance of the search warrants#
