Scribd
Upload
167 views2 pages

PHILIP MORRIS, INC., Et. Al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Et. Al.

The document discusses a case regarding whether Philip Morris has rights over a patent pursuant to the Paris Convention of 1965. It holds that based on Section 21-A of the Trademark Law and the Philippines' adherence to the 1965 Paris Convention, foreign corporations not engaged in business in the Philippines may maintain an infringement case.

Uploaded by

Jolina Luna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
167 views2 pages

PHILIP MORRIS, INC., Et. Al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Et. Al.

The document discusses a case regarding whether Philip Morris has rights over a patent pursuant to the Paris Convention of 1965. It holds that based on Section 21-A of the Trademark Law and the Philippines' adherence to the 1965 Paris Convention, foreign corporations not engaged in business in the Philippines may maintain an infringement case.

Uploaded by

Jolina Luna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PHILIP MORRIS, INC., et. al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et. al.

G.R. No. 91332 July 16, 1993


MELO, J.

Issue
Whether or not Philip Morris have rights over the patent pursuant to the treaty of
the Paris Convention of 1965?

Holding
Section 21-A of the Trademark Law states that, “Any foreign corporation or juristic
person to which a mark or trade-name has been registered or assigned under this act
may bring an action hereunder for infringement, for unfair competition, or false
designation of origin and false description, whether or not it has been licensed to do
business in the Philippines under Act Numbered Fourteen hundred and fifty-nine, as
amended, otherwise known as the Corporation Law, at the time it brings complaint:
Provided, That the country of which the said foreign corporation or juristic person is a
citizen or in which it is domiciled, by treaty, convention or law, grants a similar privilege
to corporate or juristic persons of the Philippines.” (As inserted by Sec. 7 of Republic
Act No. 638.)

Ruling
No. To sustain a successful prosecution of their suit for infringement, petitioners,
as foreign corporations not engaged in local commerce, rely on section 21-A of the
Trademark Law. To drive home the point that they are not precluded from initiating a
cause of action in the Philippines on account of the principal perception that another
entity is pirating their symbol without any lawful authority to do so. Judging from a
perusal of the aforequoted Section 21-A, the conclusion reached by petitioners is
certainly correct for the proposition in support thereof is embedded in the Philippine
legal jurisprudence.
Another point which petitioners considered to be of significant interest, and which
they desire to impress upon us is the protection they enjoy under the Paris Convention
of 1965 to which the Philippines is a signatory. Yet, insofar as this discourse is
concerned, there is no necessity to treat the matter with an extensive response because
adherence of the Philippines to the 1965 international covenant due to pact sunt
servanda had been acknowledged in La Chemise.
Given these confluence of existing laws amidst the cases involving trademarks,
there can be no disagreement to the guiding principle in commercial law that foreign
corporations not engaged in business in the Philippines may maintain a cause of action
for infringement primarily because of Section 21-A of the Trademark Law when the legal
standing to sue is alleged, which petitioners have done in the case at hand.

You might also like