La Chemise Lacoste vs. Fernandez

 La Chemise Lacoste Vs. Fernandez  Nature: Petition for review on certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeals. The  petitioner is a foreign corporation corporation organized organized and e!isting under under the laws of France and not doing "usiness in the Philippines. #t is undenia"le from the records that it is the actual owner of the trademar$s used on clothings and other goods which have  "een mar$eted in the Philippines Philippines since %&'(. %&'(. The main "asis of the the private respondent)s case case is its claim of alleged prior registration. Facts: La chemise Lacoste is a French corporation and the actual owner of the trademar$s *Lacoste+*Chemise Lacoste+ *Crocodile ,evice+ and a composite mar$ consisting of the word *Lacoste+ and a representation of a crocodile-alligator used on clothings and other goods sold in man/ parts of the world and which has  "een mar$eted in the Philippines Philippines 0nota"l/ "/ "/ 1ustans2 since %&'(. #n %&34 and %&33 5emandas 6. Co. was issued certificate of registration for the trademar$ *Chemise Lacoste and 6 Crocodile ,evice 7"oth in the supplemental and Principal 1egistr/. #n %&89 La Chemise Lacoste A filed for the registration of the *Crocodile device+ and *Lacoste+. ;ames and ;arments 0;o"indram 5emandas assignee of 5emandas 6.Co.2 opposed the registration of *Lacoste.+  #n %&8< La Chemise Lacoste filed with the N=# a letter>complaint alleging acts of  unfair competition committed "/ 5emandas and re?uesting the agenc/)s assistance for investigation and prosecution.  A search warrant was issued "/ the trial court. Va Various goods and articles were seized upon the e!ecution of the warrants. 5emandas filed motion to ?uash the warrants which the court granted. The search warrants were recalled and the goods ordered to "e returned. La Chemise Lacoste filed a petition for certiorari. The defendant argued that the petitioner has no capacit/ to sue "eing a foreign corporation not doing "usiness in the Philippines #ssue-s: @hether or not La Chemise Lacoste has capacit/ to sue 1uling: es =ut even assuming the truth of the private respondents allegation that the  petitioner failed to allege allege material facts in its petition petition relative to capacit/ capacit/ to sue the  petitioner ma/ still maintain maintain the present suit against against respondent 5emandas. 5emandas. As As earl/ as %&B3 this Court was and it still is of the view that a foreign corporation not doing "usiness in the Philippines needs no license to sue "efore Philippine courts for infringement of trademar$ and unfair competition. Thus in @estern @estern ?uipment and uppl/ Co. v. 1e/es 04% Phil.%%42 this Court held that a foreign corporation which has never done an/ "usiness in the Philippines and which is unlicensed and unregistered to do "usiness here "ut is widel/ and favora"l/ $nown in the Philippines through the use therein of its products "earing its corporate and trade name has a legal right to maintain an action in the Philippines to restrain the residents and inha"itants thereof from organizing a corporation therein "earing the same name as the foreign corporation when it appears that the/

have personal $nowledge of the e!istence of such a foreign corporation and it is apparent that the purpose of the proposed domestic corporation is to deal and trade in the same goods as those of the foreign corporation. @e further held: ... That compan/ is not here see$ing to enforce an/ legal or control rights arising from or growing out of an/ "usiness which it has transacted in the Philippine #slands. The sole purpose of the action: #s to protect its reputation its corporate name its goodwill whenever that reputation corporate name or goodwill have through the natural development of its trade esta"lished themselves. And And it contends that its rights to the use of its corporate and trade name: #s a propert/ right a right r ight in rem which it ma/ assert and protect against all the world in an/ of the courts of the world>even in Durisdictions where it does not transact "usiness>Dust the same as it ma/ protect its tangi"le propert/ real or  personal against trespass or or conversion. That That point is sustained "/ the the authorities and is well stated in 5anover tar Eining Co. v. Allen Allen and @heeler Co. 0B98 Fed. 4%<2. in which the s/lla"us sa/s: ince it is the trade and not the mar$ that is to "e protected a trade>mar$ ac$nowledges no territorial "oundaries of municipalities or states or nations "ut e!tends to ever/ mar$et where the traders goods have "ecome $nown and #dentified "/ the use of the mar$.

have personal $nowledge of the e!istence of such a foreign corporation and it is apparent that the purpose of the proposed domestic corporation is to deal and trade in the same goods as those of the foreign corporation. @e further held: ... That compan/ is not here see$ing to enforce an/ legal or control rights arising from or growing out of an/ "usiness which it has transacted in the Philippine #slands. The sole purpose of the action: #s to protect its reputation its corporate name its goodwill whenever that reputation corporate name or goodwill have through the natural development of its trade esta"lished themselves. And And it contends that its rights to the use of its corporate and trade name: #s a propert/ right a right r ight in rem which it ma/ assert and protect against all the world in an/ of the courts of the world>even in Durisdictions where it does not transact "usiness>Dust the same as it ma/ protect its tangi"le propert/ real or  personal against trespass or or conversion. That That point is sustained "/ the the authorities and is well stated in 5anover tar Eining Co. v. Allen Allen and @heeler Co. 0B98 Fed. 4%<2. in which the s/lla"us sa/s: ince it is the trade and not the mar$ that is to "e protected a trade>mar$ ac$nowledges no territorial "oundaries of municipalities or states or nations "ut e!tends to ever/ mar$et where the traders goods have "ecome $nown and #dentified "/ the use of the mar$.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-63796-97 May 2, 1984 LA CHEMISE LACOSTE, S. A., petitioner, vs. HON. OSCAR C. FERNANE!, P"#$%&%'( )*&(# o+ "a' /LI/, R#(%o'a0 T"%a0 T"%a0 Co*", Na%o'a0 Ca%a0 )*&%%a0 R#(%o', Ma'%0a a'& GOINRAM HEMANAS, respondents. G.R. No. L-669 May 20, 1984 GOINRAM HEMANAS HEMANAS SU)ANANI, petitioner, vs. HON. ROERTO . ONGPIN, %' %$ aa%y a$ M%'%$#" o+ T"a&# a'& I'&*$"y, a'& HON. CESAR SAN IEGO, %' %$ aa%y a a%y a$ %"#o" o+ Pa#'$, respondents. Castillo, Laman, Tan Tan & Pantaleon for petitioners in 63796-97. 637 96-97. Ramon C. Fernandez for private respondent in 63796-97 and petitioner in 65659.

GUTIERRE!, )R.,

J.:

It is aon! this "ourt#s concerns that the Philippines should not ac$uire an unbecoin! reputation aon! the anufacturin! and tradin! centers of the %orld as a haven for intellectual pirates iitatin! and ille!all& profitin! fro tradear's and tradenaes %hich have established theselves in international or forei!n trade.

(efore this "ourt is a petition for ertiorari %ith preliinar& in)unction filed b& *a "heise *acoste, S.+., a %ell 'no%n uropean anufacturer of clothin!s and sportin! apparels sold in the international ar'et and bearin! the tradear's -*+"OST- -"MIS *+"OST-, -"RO"ODI* DVI"- and a coposite ar' consistin! of the %ord -*+"OST- and a representation of a crocodile/alli!ator. The petitioner as's us to set aside as null and void, the order of )ud!e Oscar ". Fernande0, of (ranch 1*I1, Re!ional Trial "ourt, National "apital 2udicial Re!ion, !rantin! the otion to $uash the search %arrants previousl& issued b& hi and orderin! the return of the sei0ed ites. The facts are not seriousl& disputed. The petitioner is a forei!n corporation, or!ani0ed and e3istin! under the la%s of France and not doin! business in the Philippines, It is undeniable fro the records that it is the actual o%ner of the aboveentioned tradear's used on clothin!s and other !oods specificall& sportin! apparels sold in an& parts of the %orld and %hich have been ar'eted in the Philippines since 4567, The ain basis of the private respondent#s case is its clai of alle!ed prior re!istration. In 4589, eandas : "o., a dul& licensed doestic fir applied for and %as issued Re!. No. SR;<<<9 =SR stands for Suppleental Re!ister> for the tradear' -"MIS *+"OST : "RO"ODI* DVI"- b& the Philippine Patent Office for use on T;shirts, sports%ear and other !arent products of the copan&. T%o &ears later, it applied for the re!istration of the sae tradear' under the Principal Re!ister. The Patent Office eventuall& issued an order dated March ?, 4588 %hich states that@ 333 333 333 ... "onsiderin! that the ar' %as alread& re!istered in the Suppleental Re!ister in favor of herein applicant, the Office has no other recourse but to allo% the application, ho%ever, Re!. No. SR;<<<9 is no% bein! contested in a Petition for "ancellation doc'eted as IP" No. 4A76, still re!istrant is

presued to be the o%ner of the ar' until after the re!istration is declared cancelled. Thereafter, eandas : "o. assi!ned to respondent Bobindra eandas all ri!hts, title, and interest in the tradear' -"MIS *+"OST : DVI"-. On Noveber <4, 45CA, the petitioner filed its application for re!istration of the tradear' -"rocodile Device- =+pplication Serial No. 7?<7<> and -*acoste- =+pplication Serial No. 7?<74>.The forer %as approved for publication %hile the latter %as opposed b& Baes and Barents in Inter Partes "ase No. 469C. In 45C<, the petitioner filed a Petition for the "ancellation of Re!. No. SR;<<<9 doc'eted as Inter Partes "ase No. 46C5. (oth cases have no% been considered b& this "ourt in !emandas v. !on. Ro"erto #n$pin =B.R. No. 69695>. On March <4, 45C?, the petitioner filed %ith the National (ureau of Investi!ation =N(I> a letter;coplaint alle!in! therein the acts of unfair copetition bein! coitted b& eandas and re$uestin! their assistance in his apprehension and prosecution. The N(I conducted an investi!ation and subse$uentl& filed %ith the respondent court t%o applications for the issuance of search %arrants %hich %ould authori0e the search of the preises used and occupied b& the *acoste Sports "enter and Baes and Barents both o%ned and operated b& eandas. The respondent court issued Search arrant Nos. C?;4 The N(I a!ents e3ecuted the t%o search %arrants and as a result of the search found and sei0ed various !oods and articles described in the %arrants.

eandas filed a otion to $uash the search %arrants alle!in! that the tradear' used b& hi %as different fro petitioner#s tradear' and that pendin! the resolution of IP" No. 469C before the Patent Office, an& criinal or civil action on the sae sub)ect atter and bet%een the sae parties %ould be preature. The petitioner filed its opposition to the otion ar!uin! that the otion to $uash %as fatall& defective as it cited no valid !round for the $uashal of the search %arrants and that the !rounds alle!ed in the otion %ere absolutel& %ithout erit. The State Prosecutor li'e%ise filed his opposition on the !rounds that the !oods sei0ed %ere instruent of a crie and necessar& for the resolution of the case on preliinar& investi!ation and that the release of the said !oods %ould be fatal to the case of the People should prosecution follo% in court. The respondent court %as, ho%ever, convinced that there %as no probable cause to )ustif& the issuance of the search %arrants. Thus, in its order dated March <<, 45C?, the search %arrants %ere recalled and set aside and the N(I a!ents or officers in custod& of the sei0ed ites %ere ordered to return the sae to eandas. =Rollo, p. <9> The petitioner anchors the present petition on the follo%in! issues@ Did respondent )ud!e act %ith !rave abuse of discretion aountin! to lac' of )urisdiction, =i> in reversin! the findin! of probable cause %hich he hiself had ade in issuin! the search %arrants, upon alle!ations %hich are atters of defense and as such can be raised and resolved onl& upon trial on the eritsE and =ii> in findin! that the issuance of the search %arrants is preature in the face of the fact that =a> *acoste#s re!istration of the sub)ect tradear's is still pendin! %ith the Patent Office %ith opposition fro eandasE and =b> the sub)ect tradear's

had been earlier re!istered b& eandas in his nae in the Suppleental Re!ister of the Philippine Patent Office Respondent, on the other hand, centers his ar!uents on the follo%in! issues@ I T PTITIONR +S NO "+P+"ITG TO SH (FOR PI*IPPIN "OHRTS. II T RSPONDNT 2HDB DID NOT "OMMIT + BR+V +(HS OF DIS"RTION T+NT+MOHNT TO *+" OF 2HRISDI"TION IN ISSHINB T ORDR D+TD +PRI* <<, 45C?. eandas ar!ues in his coent on the petition for ertiorari that the petitioner bein! a forei!n corporation failed to alle!e essential facts bearin! upon its capacit& to sue before Philippine courts. e states that not onl& is the petitioner not doin! business in the Philippines but it also is not licensed to do business in the Philippines. e also cites the case of Leviton %ndstries v. 'alvador =447 S"R+ 7 to support his contention The Leviton case, ho%ever, involved a coplaint for unfair copetition under Section <4;+ of Republic +ct No. 466 %hich provides@ Sec. <4 J +. +n& forei!n corporation or )uristic person to %hich a ar' or tradenae has been re!istered or assi!ned under this +ct a& brin! an action hereunder for infrin!eent, for unfair copetition, or false desi!nation of ori!in and false description, %hether or not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines under +ct nubered Fourteen undred and Fift&;Nine, as aended, other%ise 'no%n as the "orporation *a%, at the tie it brin!s the coplaintE Provided , That the countr& of %hich the said forei!n corporation or )uristic person is a citi0en, or in %hich it is doiciled, b& treat&, convention or la%,

!rants a siilar privile!e to corporate or )uristic persons of the Philippines. e held that it %as not enou!h for *eviton, a forei!n corporation or!ani0ed and e3istin! under the la%s of the State of Ne% Gor', Hnited States of  +erica, to erel& alle!e that it is a forei!n corporation. It averred in Para!raph < of its coplaint that its action %as bein! filed under the provisions of Section <4;+ of Republic +ct No. 466, as aended. "opliance %ith the re$uireents iposed b& the abovecited provision %as necessar& because Section <4;+ of Republic +ct No. 466 havin! e3plicitl& laid do%n certain conditions in a specific proviso, the sae ust be e3pressl& averred before a successful prosecution a& ensue. It is therefore, necessar& for the forei!n corporation to copl& %ith these re$uireents or aver %h& it should be e3epted fro the, if such %as the case. The forei!n corporation a& have the ri!ht to sue before Philippine courts, but our rules on pleadin!s re$uire that the $ualif&in! circustances necessar& for the assertion of such ri!ht should first be affirativel& pleaded. In contradistinction, the present case involves a coplaint for violation of  +rticle 4C5 of the Revised Penal "ode. The Leviton case is not applicable.  +ssertin! a distinctl& different position fro the *eviton ar!uent, eandas ar!ued in his brief that the petitioner %as doin! business in the Philippines but %as not licensed to do so. To support this ar!uent, he states that the applicable rulin! is the case of (ent)olatm Co., %n. v. (an$aliman@ =8< Phil. 9<7> %here Mentholatu "o. Inc., a forei!n corporation and Philippine;+erican Dru! "o., the forer#s e3clusive distributin! a!ent in the Philippines filed a coplaint for infrin!eent of tradear' and unfair copetition a!ainst the Man!alians. The ar!uent has no erit. T)e (ent)olatm case is distinct fro and inapplicable to the case at bar. Philippine +erican Dru! "o., Inc., %as adittedl& sellin! products of its principal Mentholatu "o., Inc., in the

latter#s nae or for the latter#s account. Thus, this "ourt held that -%hatever  transactions the Philippine;+erican Dru! "o., Inc. had e3ecuted in vie% of  the la%, the Mentholatu "o., Inc., did it itself. +nd, the Mentholatu "o., Inc., bein! a forei!n doin! business in the Philippines %ithout the license re$uired b& Section 6C of the "orporation *a%, it a& not prosecute this action for violation of tradear' and unfair copetition.In the present case, ho%ever, the petitioner is a forei!n corporation not doin! business in the Philippines. The ar'etin! of its products in the Philippines is done throu!h an e3clusive distributor, Rustan "oercial "orporation The latter is an independent entit& %hich bu&s and then ar'ets not onl& products of the petitioner but also an& other products bearin! e$uall& %ell;'no%n and established tradear's and tradenaes. in other %ords, Rustan is not a ere a!ent or conduit of the petitioner. The rules and re!ulations proul!ated b& the (oard of Investents pursuant to its rule;a'in! po%er under Presidential Decree No. 48C5, other%ise 'no%n as the Onibus Investent "ode, support a findin! that the petitioner is not doin! business in the Philippines. Rule I, Sec. 4 =!> of said rules and re!ulations defines -doin! business- as one- %hich includes, inter alia* =4> ... + forei!n fir %hich does business throu!h iddleen actin! on their o%n naes, such as indentors, coercial bro'ers or coission erchants, shall not be deeed doin! business in the Philippines. (ut such indentors, coercial bro'ers or coission erchants shall be the ones deeed to be doin! business in the Philippines. =<> +ppointin! a representative or distributor %ho is doiciled in the Philippines, unless said representative or distributor has an independent status, i.e., it transacts business in its nae and for its account, and not in the nae or for the account of a principal Thus, %here a forei!n fir is represented b& a person

or local copan& %hich does not act in its nae but in the nae of the forei!n fir the latter is doin! business in the Philippines. 333 333 333  +ppl&in! the above provisions to the facts of this case, %e find and conclude that the petitioner is not doin! business in the Philippines. Rustan is actuall& a iddlean actin! and transactin! business in its o%n nae and or its o%n account and not in the nae or for the account of the petitioner. (ut even assuin! the truth of the private respondent#s alle!ation that the petitioner failed to alle!e aterial facts in its petition relative to capacit& to sue, the petitioner a& still aintain the present suit a!ainst respondent eandas. +s earl& as 45<8, this "ourt %as, and it still is, of the vie% that a forei!n corporation not doin! business in the Philippines needs no license to sue before Philippine courts for infrin!eent of tradear' and unfair copetition. Thus, in +estern ipment and 'ppl Co. v. Rees =94 Phil. 449>, this "ourt held that a forei!n corporation %hich has never done an& business in the Philippines and %hich is unlicensed and unre!istered to do business here, but is %idel& and favorabl& 'no%n in the Philippines throu!h the use therein of its products bearin! its corporate and tradenae, has a le!al ri!ht to aintain an action in the Philippines to restrain the residents and inhabitants thereof fro or!ani0in! a corporation therein bearin! the sae nae as the forei!n corporation, %hen it appears that the& have personal 'no%led!e of the e3istence of such a forei!n corporation, and it is apparent that the purpose of the proposed doestic corporation is to deal and trade in the sae !oods as those of the forei!n corporation. e further held@ 333 333 333

... That copan& is not here see'in! to enforce an& le!al or control ri!hts arisin! fro, or !ro%in! out of, an& business %hich it has transacted in the Philippine Islands. The sole purpose of the action@ Is to protect its reputation, its corporate nae, its !ood%ill, %henever that reputation, corporate nae or !ood%ill have, throu!h the natural developent of its trade, established theselves.# +nd it contends that its ri!hts to the use of its corporate and trade nae@ Is a propert& ri!ht, a ri!ht in rem, %hich it a& assert and protect a!ainst all the %orld, in an& of the courts of the %orld; even in )urisdictions %here it does not transact business;)ust the sae as it a& protect its tan!ible propert&, real or personal, a!ainst trespass, or conversion. "itin! sec. 4A, Nis on Hnfair "opetition and TradeMar's and cases citedE secs. <4;<<, op'ins on TradeMar's, Trade Naes and Hnfair "opetition and cases cited.# That point is sustained b& the authorities, and is %ell stated in !anover 'tar (inin$ Co. v. /llen and +)eeler Co. =. in %hich the s&llabus sa&s@ Since it is the trade and not the ar' that is to be protected, a trade;ar' ac'no%led!es no territorial boundaries of unicipalities or states or nations, but e3tends to ever& ar'et %here the trader#s !oods have becoe 'no%n and Identified b& the use of the ar'. Our reco!ni0in! the capacit& of the petitioner to sue is not b& an& eans novel or precedent settin!. Our )urisprudence is replete %ith cases illustratin! instances %hen forei!n corporations not doin! business in the Philippines a& nonetheless sue in our courts. In ast 0oard 1avi$ation Ltd, v. 2smael and Co., %n. =4A< Phil. 4>, %e reco!ni0ed a ri!ht of forei!n corporation to sue on isolated transactions. In eneral arments Corp. v.

4iretor of Patents =74 S"R+ 9A>, %e sustained the ri!ht of Puritan Sports%ear "orp., a forei!n corporation not licensed to do and not doin! business in the Philippines, to file a petition for cancellation of a tradear' before the Patent Office. More iportant is the nature of the case %hich led to this petition. hat preceded this petition for ertiorari %as a letter coplaint filed before the N(I char!in! eandas %ith a criinal offense, i.e., violation of +rticle 4C5 of the Revised Penal "ode. If prosecution follo%s after the copletion of the preliinar& investi!ation bein! conducted b& the Special Prosecutor the inforation shall be in the nae of the People of the Philippines and no lon!er the petitioner %hich is onl& an a!!rieved part& since a criinal offense is essentiall& an act a!ainst the State. It is the latter %hich is principall& the in)ured part& althou!h there is a private ri!ht violated. Petitioner#s capacit& to sue %ould becoe, therefore, of not uch si!nificance in the ain case. e cannot sno% a possible violator of our criinal statutes to escape prosecution upon a far;fetched contention that the a!!rieved part& or victi of a crie has no standin! to sue. In upholdin! the ri!ht of the petitioner to aintain the present suit before our courts for unfair copetition or infrin!eent of tradear's of a forei!n corporation, %e are oreover reco!ni0in! our duties and the ri!hts of forei!n states under the Paris "onvention for the Protection of Industrial Propert& to %hich the Philippines and France are parties. e are sipl& interpretin! and enforcin! a solen international coitent of the Philippines ebodied in a ultilateral treat& to %hich %e are a part& and %hich %e entered into because it is in our national interest to do so. The Paris "onvention provides in part that@  +RTI"* 4 =4> The countries to %hich the present "onvention applies constitute theselves into a Hnion for the protection of industrial propert&.

=<> The protection of industrial propert& is concerned %ith patents, utilit& odels, industrial desi!ns, tradear's service ar's, trade naes, and indications of source or appellations of ori!in, and the repression of unfair copetition. 333 333 333  +RTI"* < =<> Nationals of each of the countries of the Hnion shall as re!ards the protection of industrial propert&, en)o& in all the other countries of the Hnion the advanta!es that their respective la%s no% !rant, or a& hereafter !rant, to nationals, %ithout pre)udice to the ri!hts speciall& provided b& the present "onvention. "onse$uentl&, the& shall have the sae protection as the latter, and the sae le!al reed& a!ainst an& infrin!eent of their ri!hts, provided the& observe the conditions and foralities iposed upon nationals. 333 333 333  +RTI"* 6 =4> The countries of the Hnion underta'e, either adinistrativel& if their le!islation so perits, or at the re$uest of an interested part&, to refuse or to cancel the re!istration and to prohibit the use of a tradear' %hich constitutes a reproduction, iitation or translation, liable to create confusion, of a ar' considered b& the copetent authorit& of the countr& of re!istration or use to be %ell;'no%n in that countr& as bein! alread& the ar' of a person entitled to the benefits of the present "onvention and used for Identical or siilar !oods. These provisions shall also appl& %hen the essential part of the ar' constitutes a reproduction of an& such %ell;'no%n ar' or an iitation liable to create confusion there%ith.

333 333 333  +RTI"* C  + trade nae shall be protected in all the countries of the Hnion %ithout the obli!ation of filin! or re!istration, %hether or not it fors part of a tradear'. 333 333 333  +RTI"* 4Abis =4> The countries of the Hnion are bound to assure to persons entitled to the benefits of the Hnion effective protection a!ainst unfair copetition. 333 333 333  +RTI"* 4Ater  =4> The countries of the Hnion underta'e to assure to nationals of the other countries of the Hnion appropriate le!al reedies to repress effectivel& all the acts referred to in +rticles 5, 4A and lAbis. =<> The& underta'e, further, to provide easures to perit s&ndicates and associations %hich represent the industrialists, producers or traders concerned and the e3istence of %hich is not contrar& to the la%s of their countries, to ta'e action in the "ourts or before the adinistrative authorities, %ith a vie% to the repression of the acts referred to in +rticles 5, 4A and 4Abis, in so far as the la% of the countr& in %hich protection is claied allo%s such action b& the s&ndicates and associations of that countr&. 333 333 333

 +RTI"* 48 ver& countr& part& to this "onvention underta'es to adopt, in accordance %ith its constitution, the easures necessar& to ensure the application of this "onvention. It is understood that at the tie an instruent of ratification or accession is deposited on behalf of a countr&E such countr& %ill be in a position under its doestic la% to !ive effect to the provisions of this "onvention. =64 O.B. CA4A> 333 333 333 In anit Fair (ills, %n. v. T aton Co. = the Hnited States "ircuit "ourt of +ppeals had occasion to coent on the e3traterritorial application of the Paris "onvention It said that@ K44L The International "onvention is essentiall& a copact bet%een the various eber countries to accord in their o%n countries to citi0ens of the other contractin! parties tradear' and other ri!hts coparable to those accorded their o%n citi0ens b& their doestic la%. The underl&in! principle is that forei!n nationals should be !iven the sae treatent in each of  the eber countries as that countr& a'es available to its o%n citi0ens. In addition, the "onvention sou!ht to create uniforit& in certain respects b& obli!atin! each eber nation #to assure to nationals of countries of the Hnion an effective protection a!ainst unfair copetition.# K4
e3tensive protection here a!ainst infrin!eent and other t&pes of unfair copetition b& virtue of Hnited States ebership in the "onvention. (ut that protection has its source in, and is sub)ect to the liitations of, +erican la%, not the la% of the forei!n national#s o%n countr&. ... (& the sae to'en, the petitioner should be !iven the sae treatent in the Philippines as %e a'e available to our o%n citi0ens. e are obli!ated to assure to nationals of -countries of the Hnion- an effective protection a!ainst unfair copetition in the sae %a& that the& are obli!ated to siilarl& protect Filipino citi0ens and firs. Pursuant to this obli!ation, the Ministr& of Trade on Noveber
b& the private respondent, a personal polic& of Minister *uis Villafuerte %hich e3pires once he leaves the Ministr& of Trade. For a treat& or convention is not a ere oral obli!ation to be enforced or not at the %his of an incubent head of a Ministr&. It creates a le!all& bindin! obli!ation on the parties founded on the !enerall& accepted principle of international la% of pata snt servanda %hich has been adopted as part of  the la% of our land. ="onstitution, +rt. II, Sec. ?>. The eorandu reinds the Director of Patents of his le!al dut& to obe& both la% and treat&. It ust also be obe&ed. eandas further contends that the respondent court did not coit !rave abuse of discretion in issuin! the $uestioned order of +pril <<, 45C?.  + revie% of the !rounds invo'ed b& eandas in his otion to $uash the search %arrants reveals the fact that the& are not appropriate for $uashin! a %arrant. The& are atters of defense %hich should be ventilated durin! the trial on the erits of the case. For instance, on the basis of the facts before the 2ud!e, %e fail to understand ho% he could treat a bare alle!ation that the respondent#s tradear' is different fro the petitioner#s tradear' as a sufficient basis to !rant the otion to $uash. e %ill treat the issue of pre)udicial $uestion later. Brantin! that respondent eandas %as onl& tr&in! to sho% the absence of probable cause, %e, nonetheless, hold the ar!uents to be untenable.  +s a andator& re$uireent for the issuance of a valid search %arrant, the "onstitution re$uires in no uncertain ters the deterination of probable cause b& the )ud!e after e3aination under oath or affiration of the coplainant and the %itnesses he a& produce ="onstitution, +rt. IV, Sec. ?>. Probable cause has traditionall& eant such facts and circustances antecedent to the issuance of the %arrant that are in theselves sufficient to induce a cautious an to rel& upon the and act in pursuance thereof =People v. S& 2uco, 67 Phil. 668>.

This concept of probable cause %as aplified and odified b& our rulin! in 'tone)ill v. 4iono, = that probable cause -presupposes the introduction of copetent proof that the part& a!ainst %ho it is sou!ht has perfored partilar acts, or coitted specific oissions, violatin! a !iven provision of our criinal la%s.The $uestion of %hether or not probable cause e3ists is one %hich ust be decided in the li!ht of the conditions obtainin! in !iven situations ="entral (an' v. Morfe, . e a!ree that there is no !eneral forula or  fi3ed rule for the deterination of the e3istence of probable cause since, as %e have reco!ni0ed in Lna v. Plaza=<6 S"R+ ?4A>, the e3istence depends to a lar!e de!ree upon the findin! or opinion of the )ud!e conductin! the e3aination. o%ever, the findin!s of the )ud!e should not disre!ard the facts before hi nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason. More so it is plain that our countr&#s abilit& to abide b& international coitents is at sta'e. The records sho% that the N(I a!ents at the hearin! of the application for the %arrants before respondent court presented three %itnesses under oath, s%orn stateents, and various e3hibits in the for of clothin! apparels anufactured b& eandas but carr&in! the tradear' *acoste. The respondent court personall& interro!ated Raon s!uerra, Sauel Fi)i, and Maerto spatero b& eans of searchin! $uestions. +fter hearin! the testionies and e3ainin! the docuentar& evidence, the respondent court %as convinced that there %ere !ood and sufficient reasons for the issuance of the %arrant. +nd it then issued the %arrant. The respondent court, therefore, coplied %ith the constitutional and statutor& re$uireents for the issuance of a valid search %arrant. +t that point in tie, it %as full& convinced that there e3isted probable cause. (ut after hearin! the otion to $uash and the oppositions thereto, the respondent court e3ecuted a coplete turnabout and declared that there %as no probable cause to )ustif& its earlier issuance of the %arrants.

True, the lo%er court should be !iven the opportunit& to correct its errors, if there be an&, but the rectification ust, as earlier stated be based on sound and valid !rounds. In this case, there %as no copellin! )ustification for the about face. The alle!ation that vital facts %ere deliberatel& suppressed or concealed b& the petitioner should have been assessed ore carefull& because the ob)ect of the $uashal %as the return of ites alread& sei0ed and easil& e3ained b& the court. The ites %ere alle!ed to be fa'e and $uite obviousl& %ould be needed as evidence in the criinal prosecution. Moreover, an application for a search %arrant is heard e parte. It is neither  a trial nor a part of the trial. +ction on these applications ust be e3pedited for tie is of the essence. Breat reliance has to be accorded b& the )ud!e to the testionies under oath of the coplainant and the %itnesses. The alle!ation of eandas that the applicant %ithheld inforation fro the respondent court %as clearl& no basis to order the return of the sei0ed ites. eandas relied heavil& belo% and before us on the ar!uent that it is the holder of a certificate of re!istration of the tradear' -"MIS *+"OST : "RO"ODI* DVI"-. Si!nificantl&, such re!istration is onl& in the Suppleental Re!ister.  + certificate of re!istration in the Suppleental Re!ister is not prima faie evidence of the validit& of re!istration, of the re!istrant#s e3clusive ri!ht to use the sae in connection %ith the !oods, business, or services specified in the certificate. Such a certificate of re!istration cannot be filed, %ith effect, %ith the (ureau of "ustos in order to e3clude fro the Philippines, forei!n !oods bearin! infrin!eent ar's or trade naes =Rule 4<7, Revised Rules of Practice (efore the Phil. Pat. Off. in Tradear' "asesE Martin, Philippine "oercial *a%s, 45C4, Vol. <, pp. 94?;949>. Section 45;+ of Republic +ct 466 as aended not onl& provides for the 'eepin! of the suppleental re!ister in addition to the principal re!ister but specificall& directs that@

333 333 333 The certificates of re!istration for ar's and trade naes re!istered on the suppleental re!ister shall be conspicuousl& different fro certificates issued for ar's and trade naes on the principal re!ister. 333 333 333 The reason is e3plained b& a leadin! coentator on Philippine "oercial *a%s@ The re!istration of a ar' upon the suppleental re!ister is not, as in the case of the principal re!ister, pria facie evidence of =4> the validit& of re!istrationE =<> re!istrant#s o%nership of the ar'E and =?> re!istrant#s e3clusive ri!ht to use the ar'. It is not sub)ect to opposition, althou!h it a& be cancelled after its issuance. Neither a& it be the sub)ect of interference proceedin!s. Re!istration on the suppleental re!ister is not constructive notice of re!istrant#s clai of o%nership. + suppleental re!ister is provided for the re!istration of ar's %hich are not re!istrable on the principal re!ister because of soe defects =conversel&, defects %hich a'e a ar' unre!istrable on the principal re!ister, &et do not bar the fro the suppleental re!ister.> =+!ba&ani, II "oercial *a%s of the Philippines, 458C, p. 947, citin! H& on! Mo v. Tita& : "o., et al., Dec. No. <97 of Director of Patents, +pr. ?A, 456?>E Re!istration in the Suppleental Re!ister, therefore, serves as notice that the re!istrant is usin! or has appropriated the tradear'. (& the ver& fact that the tradear' cannot as &et be entered in the Principal Re!ister, all %ho deal %ith it should be on !uard that there are certain defects, soe obstacles %hich the user ust Still overcoe before he can clai le!al o%nership of the ar' or as' the courts to vindicate his clais of an e3clusive ri!ht to the use of the sae. It %ould be deceptive for a part& %ith

nothin! ore than a re!istration in the Suppleental Re!ister to posture before courts of )ustice as if the re!istration is in the Principal Re!ister. The reliance of the private respondent on the last sentence of the Patent office action on application Serial No. ?A597 that -re!istrant is presued to be the o%ner of the ar' until after the re!istration is declared cancelledis, therefore, isplaced and !rounded on sha'& foundation, The supposed presuption not onl& runs counter to the precept ebodied in Rule 4<7 of the Revised Rules of Practice before the Philippine Patent Office in Tradear' "ases but considerin! all the facts ventilated before us in the four interrelated petitions involvin! the petitioner and the respondent, it is devoid of factual basis. +nd even in cases %here presuption and precept a& factuall& be reconciled, %e have held that the presuption is rebuttable, not conclusive, =People v. *i oa, B.R. No. *4A64<, Ma& ?A, 459C, Hnreported>. One a& be declared an unfair copetitor even if his copetin! tradear' is re!istered =Par'e, Davis : "o. v. iu Foo : "o., et al., 6A Phil. 5. (& the sae to'en, the ar!uent that the application %as preature in vie% of the pendin! case before the Patent Office is li'e%ise %ithout le!al basis. The proceedin!s pendin! before the Patent Office involvin! IP" "o. 469C do not parta'e of the nature of a pre)udicial $uestion %hich ust first be definitel& resolved. Section 9 of Rule 444 of the Rules of "ourt provides that@  + petition for the suspension of the criinal action based upon the pendenc& of a pre;)udicial $uestion in a civil case, a& onl& be presented b& an& part& before or durin! the trial of the criinal action. The case %hich suspends the criinal prosecution ust be a civil case %hich is deterinative of the innocence or, sub)ect to the availabilit& of

other defenses, the !uilt of the accused. The pendin! case before the Patent Office is an adinistrative proceedin! and not a civil case. The decision of the Patent Office cannot be finall& deterinative of the private respondent#s innocence of the char!es a!ainst hi. In Flordelis v. Castillo =9C S"R+ ?A4>, %e held that@  +s clearl& delineated in the aforecited provisions of the ne% "ivil "ode and the Rules of "ourt, and as uniforl& applied in nuerous decisions of this "ourt, =(erbari v. "oncepcion, 7A Phil. C?8 =45E +leria v. Mendo0a, C? Phil. 7<8 =4575>E People v. +ra!on, 57 Phil. ?98 =4597>E (rito;S& v. Malate Ta3icab : Bara!e, Inc., 4A< Phil 7C< =4598>E Mendiola v. Macadael, 4 S"R+ 95?E (enite0 v. "oncepcion, < S"R+ 48CE apante v. Montesa, 7 S"R+ 94AE 2iene0 v. +veria, << S"R+ 4?CA.> In (uenaventura v. Ocapo =99 S"R+ <84> the doctrine of pre)udicial $uestion %as held inapplicable because no criinal case but erel& an adinistrative case and a civil suit %ere involved. The "ourt, ho%ever, held that, in vie% of the peculiar circustances of that case, the respondents# suit for daa!es in the lo%er court %as preature as it %as filed durin! the pendenc& of an adinistrative case a!ainst the respondents before the PO*"OM. #The possibilit& cannot be overloo'ed,# said the "ourt, #that the PO*"OM a& hand do%n a decision adverse to the respondents, in %hich case the daa!e suit %ill becoe unfounded and baseless for %antin! in cause of action.#> the doctrine of pre;)udicial $uestion coes into pla& !enerall& in a situation %here a civil action and a criinal action both penned and there e3ists in the forer an issue %hich ust be preeptivel& resolved before the criinal action a& proceed, because ho%soever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved %ould be deterinative 8ris et de 8re of the !uilt or innocence of the accused in the criinal case.

In the present case, no civil action pends nor has an& been instituted. hat %as pendin! %as an adinistrative case before the Patent Office. ven assuin! that there could be an adinistrative proceedin! %ith e3ceptional or special circustances %hich render a criinal prosecution preature pendin! the proul!ation of the adinistrative decision, no such peculiar circustances are present in this case. Moreover, %e ta'e note of the action ta'en b& the Patents Office and the Minister of Trade and affired b& the Interediate +ppellate "ourt in the case of La C)emise Laoste '. /. v . Ram 'ad)ani =+";B.R. No. SP; 4??96, 2une 48, 45C?>. The sae Noveber
In the case at bar, the Minister of Trade, as #the copetent authorit& of the countr& of re!istration,# has found that aon! other %ell;'no%n tradear's #*acoste# is the sub)ect of conflictin! clais. For this reason, applications for its re!istration ust be re)ected or refused, pursuant to the treat& obli!ation of the Philippines.  +part fro this findin!, the anne3es to the opposition, %hich *a "heise *acoste S.+. filed in the Patent Office, sho% that it is the o%ner of the tradear' #*acoste# and the device consistin! of a representation of a crocodile or alli!ator b& the prior adoption and use of such ar' and device on clothin!, sports apparel and the li'e. *a "heise *acoste S.+, obtained re!istration of these ar' and device and %as in fact issued rene%al certificates b& the French National Industr& Propert& Office. 333 333 333 Indeed, due process is a rule of reason. In the case at bar the order of the Patent Office is based not onl& on the undisputed fact of o%nership of the tradear' b& the appellee but on a prior deterination b& the Minister of Trade, as the copetent authorit& under the Paris "onvention, that the tradear' and device sou!ht to be re!istered b& the appellant are %ell;'no%n ar's %hich the Philippines, as part& to the "onvention, is bound to protect in favor of its o%ners. it %ould be to e3alt for over substance to sa& that under the circustances, due process re$uires that a hearin! should be held before the application is acted upon. The appellant cites section 5 of Republic +ct No. 466, %hich re$uires notice and hearin! %henever an opposition to the re!istration of a tradear' is ade. This provision does not

appl&, ho%ever, to situations covered b& the Paris "onvention, %here the appropriate authorities have deterined that a %ell; 'no%n tradear' is alread& that of another person. In such cases, the countries si!natories to the "onvention are obli!ed to refuse or to cancel the re!istration of the ar' b& an& other person or authorit&. In this case, it is not disputed that the tradear' *acoste is such a %ell;'no%n ar' that a hearin!, such as that provided in Republic +ct No. 466, %ould be superfluous. The issue of due process %as raised and full& discussed in the appellate court#s decision. The court ruled that due process %as not violated. In the li!ht of the fore!oin! it is $uite plain that the pre)udicial $uestion ar!uent is %ithout erit. e have carefull& !one over the records of all the cases filed in this "ourt and find ore than enou!h evidence to sustain a findin! that the petitioner is the o%ner of the tradear's -*+"OST-, -"MIS *+"OST-, the crocodile or alli!ator device, and the coposite ar' of *+"OST and the representation of the crocodile or alli!ator. +n& pretensions of the private respondent that he is the o%ner are absolutel& %ithout basis. +n& further ventilation of the issue of o%nership before the Patent Office %ill be a superfluit& and a dilator& tactic. The issue of %hether or not the tradear' used b& the private respondent is different fro the petitioner#s trade ar' is a atter of defense and %ill be better resolved in the criinal proceedin!s before a court of )ustice instead of raisin! it as a preliinar& atter in an adinistrative proceedin!. The purpose of the la% protectin! a tradear' cannot be overephasi0ed. The& are to point out distinctl& the ori!in or o%nership of the article to %hich it is affi3ed, to secure to hi, %ho has been instruental in brin!in! into ar'et a superior article of erchandise, the fruit of his industr& and s'ill,

and to prevent fraud and iposition =tepha v. Director of Patents, 46 S"R+ 759>. The le!islature has enacted la%s to re!ulate the use of tradear's and provide for the protection thereof. Modern trade and coerce deands that depredations on le!itiate trade ar's of non;nationals includin! those %ho have not sho%n prior re!istration thereof should not be countenanced. The la% a!ainst such depredations is not onl& for the protection of the o%ner of the tradear' but also, and ore iportantl&, for the protection of purchasers fro confusion, ista'e, or deception as to the !oods the& are bu&in!. =+sari Go'o "o., *td. v. ee (oc, 4 S"R+ 4E Beneral Barents "orporation v. Director of Patents, 74 S"R+ 9A>. The la% on tradear's and tradenaes is based on the principle of business inte!rit& and coon )ustice# This la%, both in letter and spirit, is laid upon the preise that, %hile it encoura!es fair trade in ever& %a& and ais to foster, and not to haper, copetition, no one, especiall& a trader, is )ustified in daa!in! or )eopardi0in! another#s business b& fraud, deceipt, tric'er& or unfair ethods of an& sort. This necessaril& precludes the tradin! b& one dealer upon the !ood nae and reputation built up b& another =(altiore v. Moses, 4C< Md <<5, ?7 + = ??C>. The records sho% that the !ood%ill and reputation of the petitioner#s products bearin! the tradear' *+"OST date bac' even before 4567 %hen *+"OST clothin! apparels %ere first ar'eted in the Philippines. To allo% eandas to continue usin! the tradear' *acoste for the siple reason that he %as the first re!istrant in the Suppleental Re!ister of a tradear' used in international coerce and not belon!in! to hi is to render nu!ator& the ver& essence of the la% on tradear's and tradenaes. e no% proceed to the consideration of the petition in o"indram !emandas Suianani u. !on. Ro"erto V On!pin,et al. =B.R. No. 69695>.

 +ctuall&, three other petitions involvin! the sae tradear' and device have been filed %ith this "ourt. In !emandas & Co. v. %ntermediate /ppellate Cort, et al . =B.R. No. 6?9A7> the petitioner as'ed for the follo%in! relief@ IN VI OF +** T FORBOINB, it is respectfull& pra&ed =a> that the Resolutions of the respondent "ourt of 2anuar& ?, 45C? and Februar& <7, 45C? be nullifiedE and that the Decision of the sae respondent "ourt of 2une ?A, 45C? be declared to be the la% on the atterE =b> that the Director of Patents be directed to issue the correspondin! re!istration certificate in the Principal Re!isterE and =c> !rantin! upon the petitioner such other le!al and e$uitable reedies as are )ustified b& the preises. On Deceber 9, 45C?, %e issued the follo%in! resolution@ "onsiderin! the alle!ations contained, issues raised and the ar!uents adduced in the petition for revie%, the respondent#s coent thereon, and petitioner#s repl& to said coent, the "ourt Resolved to DNG the petition for lac' of erit. The "ourt further Resolved to "+** the attention of the Philippine Patent Office to the pendenc& in this "ourt of B.R. No. 96?856;58 entitled #*a "heise *acoste, S.+. v. on. Oscar ". Fernande0 and Bobindra eandas# %hich %as !iven due course on 2une 47, 45C? and to the fact that B.R. No. 6?5 pra&ed for the follo%in!@

I. On the petition for issuance of %rit of preliinar& in)unction, an order be issued after due hearin!@ l. n)oinin! and restrainin! respondents "opan&, attorne&s;in; fact, and stanislao Branados fro further proceedin!s in the unfair copetition char!es pendin! %ith the Ministr& of 2ustice filed a!ainst petitionerE <. n)oinin! and restrainin! respondents "opan& and its attorne&s;in;fact fro causin! undue publication in ne%spapers of !eneral circulation on their un%arranted clai that petitioner#s products are F+ pendin! proceedin!s hereofE and ?. n)oinin! and restrainin! respondents "opan& and its attorne&s;in;fact fro sendin! further threatenin! letters to petitioner#s custoers un)ustl& statin! that petitioner#s products the& are dealin! in are F+ and threatenin! the %ith confiscation and sei0ure thereof. II. On the ain petition, )ud!ent be rendered@ l. +%ardin! and !rantin! the issuance of the rit of Prohibition, prohibitin!, stoppin!, and restrainin! respondents fro further coittin! the acts coplained ofE <. +%ardin! and !rantin! the issuance of the rit of Mandaus, orderin! and copellin! respondents National (ureau of Investi!ation, its aforenaed a!ents, and State Prosecutor stanislao Branados to iediatel& copl& %ith the Order of the Re!ional Trial "ourt, National "apital 2udicial Re!ion, (ranch 1*I1, Manila, dated +pril <<, 45C?, %hich directs the iediate return of the sei0ed ites under Search arrants Nos. C?;4
?. Ma'in! peranent an& %rit of in)unction that a& have been previousl& issued b& this onorable "ourt in the petition at bar@ and 7. +%ardin! such other and further relief as a& be )ust and e$uitable in the preises.  +s earlier stated, this petition %as disissed for lac' of erit on Septeber  4<, 45C?. +ctin! on a otion for reconsideration, the "ourt on Noveber is the third petition. In this last petition, the petitioner pra&s for the settin! aside as null and void and for the prohibitin! of the enforceent of the follo%in! eorandu of respondent Minister Roberto On!pin@ MMOR+NDHM@ FOR@ T DIR"TOR OF P+TNTS Philippine Patent Office 333 333 333 Pursuant to 3ecutive Order No. 54? dated 8 October 45C? %hich stren!thens the rule;a'in! and ad)udicator& po%ers of the Minister of Trade and Industr& and provides inter alia, that #such rule;a'in! and ad)udicator& po%ers should be revitali0ed in order that the Minister of Trade and Industr& can ...appl& ore s%ift and effective solutions and reedies to old and ne% probles ... such as the infrin!eent of internationall&;'no%n tradenaes and tradear's ...#and in vie% of the decision of the Interediate +ppellate "ourt in the case of L/ C!(%' L/C#'T, './., verss R/( '/4+!/1% K+";B.R. Sp. No. 4??95 =48> 2une 45C?L %hich affirs the validit& of the MMOR+NDHM of then Minister *uis R.

Villafuerte dated a declaration b& the Minister of Trade and Industr& that# the tradear' bein! considered is alread& %ell;'no%n in the Philippines such that perission for its use b& other than its ori!inal o%ner %ill constitute a reproduction, iitation, translation or other infrin!eentE =b> that the tradear' is used in coerce internationall&, supported b& proof that !oods bearin! the tradear' are sold on an international scale, advertiseents, the establishent of factories, sales offices, distributorships, and the li'e, in different countries, includin! volue or other easure of international trade and coerceE =c> that the tradear' is dul& re!istered in the industrial propert& office=s> of another countr& or countries, ta'in! into consideration the dates of such re!istrationE =d> that the tradear' has been lon! established and obtained !ood%ill and !eneral international consuer reco!nition as belon!in! to one o%ner or sourceE

=e> that the tradear' actuall& belon!s to a part& claiin! o%nership and has the ri!ht to re!istration under the provisions of the aforestated P+RIS "ONVNTION. <. The %ord tradear', as used in this MMOR+NDHM, shall include tradenaes, service ar's, lo!os, si!ns, ebles, insi!nia or other siilar devices used for Identification and reco!nition b& consuers. ?. The Philippine Patent Office shall refuse all applications for, or cancel the re!istration of, tradear's %hich constitute a reproduction, translation or iitation of a tradear' o%ned b& a person, natural or corporate, %ho is a citi0en of a countr& si!nator& to the P+RIS "ONVNTION FOR T PROT"TION OF INDHSTRI+* PROPRTG. 7. The Philippine Patent Office shall !ive due course to the Opposition in cases alread& or hereafter filed a!ainst the re!istration of tradear's entitled to protection of 'etion 6 "is of said P+RIS "ONVNTION as outlined above, b& reandin! applications filed b& one not entitled to such protection for final disallo%ance b& the 3aination Division. 9. +ll pendin! applications for Philippine re!istration of si!nature and other %orld faous tradear's filed b& applicants other than their ori!inal o%ners or users shall be re)ected forth%ith. here such applicants have alread& obtained re!istration contrar& to the aboveentioned P+RIS "ONVNTION and/or Philippine *a%, the& shall be directed to surrender their "ertificates of Re!istration to the Philippine Patent Office for iediate cancellation proceedin!s. 6. "onsistent %ith the fore!oin!, &ou are hereb& directed to e3pedite the hearin! and to decide %ithout dela& the follo%in! cases pendin! before &our Office@

4. INTR P+RTS "+S NO. 46C5;Petition filed b& *a "heise *acoste, S.+. for the cancellation of "ertificate of Re!istration No. SR;<<<9 issued to Bobindra eandas, assi!nee of eandas and "opan&E <. INTR P+RTS "+S NO. 469C;Opposition filed b& Baes and Barents "o. a!ainst the re!istration of the tradear' *acoste sou!ht b& *a "heise *acoste, S.+.E ?. INTR P+RTS "+S NO. 48C6;Opposition filed b& *a "heise *acoste, S.+. a!ainst the re!istration of tradear' "rocodile Device and S'iva sou!ht b& one ilson "hua. "onsiderin! our discussions in B.R. Nos. 6?856;58, %e find the petition in B.R. No. 69695 to be patentl& %ithout erit and accordin!l& den& it due course. In copl&in! %ith the order to decide %ithout dela& the cases specified in the eorandu, the Director of Patents shall liit hiself to the ascertainent of facts in issues not resolved b& this decision and appl& the la% as e3pounded b& this "ourt to those facts. One final point. It is essential that %e stress our concern at the seein! inabilit& of la% enforceent officials to ste the tide of fa'e and counterfeit consuer ites floodin! the Philippine ar'et or e3ported abroad fro our  countr&. The !reater victi is not so uch the anufacturer %hose product is bein! fa'ed but the Filipino consuin! public and in the case of e3portations, our ia!e abroad. No less than the President, in issuin! 3ecutive Order No. 54? dated October 8, 45C? to stren!then the po%ers of the Minister of Trade and Industr& for the protection of consuers, stated that, aon! other acts, the dupin! of substandard, iitated, ha0ardous, and cheap !oods, the infrin!eent of internationall& 'no%n tradenaes and tradear's, and the unfair trade practices of business firs has reached such proportions as to constitute econoic sabota!e. e bu& a 'itchen appliance, a household tool, perfue, face po%der, other toilet