REPUBLIC GAS CORPORATION, ARNEL U.

TY, MARI ANTONETTE

N. TY, ORLANDO REYES, FERRER SUAZO and ALVIN U. TY,
petitioners, vs. PETRON CORPORATION, PILIPINAS SHELL
PETROLEUM CORPORATION, and SHELL INTERNATIONAL
PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED, respondents.
Petitioner: Regasco entity duly licensed to engage in, conduct and carry on, the
business of refilling, buying, selling, distributing and marketing at wholesale and
retail of Liquefied Petroleum Gas ("LPG"). petitioners filed the instant Petition for
Review on Certiorari after CA denied their MOR when CA reversed the
Resolution of Sec. of DOJ affirming the dismissal of the complaint against the
petitioners

Respondents: ("Petron" for brevity) and Pilipinas Shell
Petroleum Corporation ("Shell" for brevity) are two of the largest bulk
suppliers and producers of LPG in the Philippines. Petron is the registered
owner in the Philippines of the trademarks GASUL and GASUL cylinders used
for its LPG products. It is the sole entity in the Philippines authorized to allow
refillers and distributors to refill, use, sell, and distribute GASUL LPG
containers, products and its trademarks. Pilipinas Shell, on the other hand, is
the authorized user in the Philippines of the tradename, trademarks,
symbols or designs of its principal, Shell International Petroleum Company
Limited, including the marks SHELLANE and SHELL device in connection with
the production, sale and distribution of SHELLANE LPGs. It is the only
corporation in the Philippines authorized to allow refillers and distributors to
refill, use, sell and distribute SHELLANE LPG containers and products.
The surveillance revealed that REGASCO LPG
Refilling Plant in Malabon was engaged in the refilling and sale of LPG
cylinders bearing the registered marks of the petitioners without authority
from the latter.
Issue: whether probable cause exists to hold petitioners liable for the crimes of
trademark
infringement and unfair competition as defined and penalized under Sections 155
and 168, in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293.

Ruling: Section 155. Remedies; Infringement. Any person who shall,
without the consent of the owner of the registered mark:
155.1 Use in commerce any reproduction,
counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of a registered
mark of the same container or a dominant feature
thereof in connection with the sale, offering for sale,
distribution, advertising of any goods or services
including other preparatory steps necessary to carry
out the sale of any goods or services on or in
connection with which such use is likely to cause
confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or

Here, petitioners have actually committed trademark infringement when they
refilled, without the respondents' consent, the LPG containers bearing the registered
marks of the respondents. As noted by respondents, petitioners' acts will inevitably
confuse the consuming public, since they have no way of knowing that the gas
contained in the LPG tanks bearing respondents' marks is in reality not the latter's
LPG product after the same had been illegally refilled. The public will then be led to
believe that petitioners are authorized refillers and distributors of respondents' LPG
products, considering that they are accepting empty containers of respondents and
refilling them for resale.
In the present case, respondents pertinently observed that by refilling and selling
LPG cylinders bearing their registered marks, petitioners are selling goods by giving
them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer.
the CA correctly pointed out that there is a showing that the
consumers may be misled into believing that the LPGs contained in the cylinders
bearing the marks "GASUL" and "SHELLANE" are those goods or products of the
petitioners when, in fact, they are not. Obviously, the mere use of those LPG
cylinders bearing the trademarks "GASUL" and "SHELLANE" will give the LPGs sold
by REGASCO the general appearance of the products of the petitioners.

SONIC STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., complainant , vs. ATTY.
NONNATUS P. CHUA, respondent .

Petitioner: Complainant is corporation doing business as a manufacturer and
distributor of
zinc and aluminum-zinc coated metal sheets known in the market as Superzinc
and
Superlume.

Respondent: STEELCORP is the exclusive licensee of and manufacturer in
the Philippines of "GALVALUME" metal sheet products, which are
coated with aluminum-zinc alloy, produced by using the technical
information and the patent on Hot Dip Coating of Ferrous Strands
petitioner's SUPERLUME metal sheet products, the
process by which they are manufactured and produced certainly
involves an assembly line that substantially conforms with the
technical information and registered patent licensed to
STEELCORP,
For his part, respondent counters that he never made an allegation or reservation
that STEELCORP owned Philippine Patent No. 16269. He asserts that he merely
reserved the right to present the trademark license exclusively licensed to
STEELCORP by BIEC International, Inc. which is composed of the technical
information and the patent used to produce GALVALUME metal sheet products,
the
same technology being utilized by complainant without authority from
STEELCORP.
Respondent further avers that the Complaint-Affidavit filed before the Department
of Justice did not categorically claim that STEELCORP is the owner of the
patent, but
simply that STEELCORP is the exclusive licensee of the process by which
GALVALUME is produced

ISSUE: WON Atty. Chua violated his duties as a lawyer to
avoid dishonest and deceitful conduct and and to act with candor,
fairness and good faith claimed or made to appear that
STEELCORP was the licensee of the technical information and the patent on Hot
Dip
Coating of Ferrous Strands or Philippine Patent No. 16269.

HELD: Yes. an extensive
investigation made by the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline showed that
STEELCORP only has rights as a licensee of the technical information and not
the
rights as a licensee of the patent,
respondent's words and crafted explanation, he claimed that
STEELCORP had rights as a licensee of the process, consisting of a
combination of the Technical Information and the Patent. Considering,
however, that STEELCORP's rights as a licensee of the process is
severable into (a) rights as licensee of the technical information and (b)
rights as a licensee of Patent No. 16269, respondent was less than candid
in asserting that STEELCORP had rights to the entire process during the
relevant periods
The expiration of the patent effectively negated and rendered
irrelevant respondent's defense of subsistence of the contract between
STEELCORP and BIEC International, Inc. during the filing of the application
for search warrant and filing of respondent's affidavit before the
Department of Justice. There is basis, therefore, to the claim that
respondent has not been "candid enough" in his actuations.







CHESTER UYCO, WINSTON UYCHIYONG, and CHERRY C. UYCOONG,
petitioners, vs. VICENTE LO, respondent .

Petitioner: they are the officers of Wintrade which
owns the subject trademarks and their variants. They alleged that Gasirel, not Lo,
was the real party-in-interest. They
allegedly derived their authority to use the marks from Casa Hipolito S.A.
Portugal
through Wonder, their predecessor-in-interest. Moreover, PBMC had already
ceased
to be a corporation and, thus, the licensing agreement between PBMC and Lo
could
not be given effect, particularly because the agreement was not notarizedLo
failed to sufficiently prove that the burners bought from
National Hardware were those that they manufactured. But at the same time,
they
also argued that the marks "Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" are merely
descriptive and refer to the source of the design and the history of manufacture.
Respondent: Respondent Vicente Lo and
Philippine Burners Manufacturing Corporation (PBMC) filed a complaint against
the
officers of Wintrade Industrial Sales Corporation (Wintrade) , including petitioners
Chester Uyco, Winston Uychiyong and Cherry Uyco-Ong, and of National
Hardware,
including Mario Sy Chua, for violation of Section 169.1, in relation to Section 170,
of
RA 8293.
Lo claimed that as the assignee for the trademarks, he
had not authorized Wintrade to use these marks, nor had Casa Hipolito S.A.
Portugal. The kerosene burners manufactured by Wintrade have caused
confusion,
mistake and deception on the part of the buying public. Lo stated that the real
and
genuine burners are those manufactured by its agent, PBMC

ISSUE: WON CA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the ruling of
DOJ

Held: No. They allege that
the words "Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" refer to the origin of the
design and not to the origin of the goods. The admission in the petitioners' Joint
Affidavit is not in any way hypothetical, as
they would have us believe. They narrate incidents that have happened. They
refer
to Wintrade's former association with Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal; to their
decision
to produce the burners in the Philippines; to their use of the disputed marks; and
to
their justification for their use.
More
importantly, the products that Wintrade sold were admittedly produced in the
Philippines, with no authority from Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal. The law on
trademarks and trade names precisely precludes a person from profiting from the
business reputation built by another and from deceiving the public as to the
origins
of products. These facts support the consistent findings of the State Prosecutor,
the
DOJ and the CA that probable cause exists to charge the petitioners with false
designation of origin.
The argument that the words "Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" refer to
the origin of the design and not to the origin of the goods does not negate the
finding of probable cause; at the same time, it is an argument that the petitioners
are not barred by this Resolution from raising as a defense during the hearing of
the
case.