FIRST DIVISION
|
SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT,
LTD., SHANGRI-LA PROPERTIES, INC., MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL & RESORT,
INC., AND KUOK PHILIPPINES PROPERTIES, INC.,
Petitioners, -
versus - DEVELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC.,
Respondent. |
|
G.R. No.
159938 Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: January 22, 2007 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S
O L U T I O N
GARCIA,
J.:
Before the Court is this Motion
for Reconsideration filed by respondent Developers Group
of Companies, Inc. (DGCI) praying for the reversal of this Court's Decision[1] of
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated
In its motion,
respondent-movant DGCI raises the
following grounds:
1.
The certification of non-forum shopping submitted
by petitioners is insufficient;
2.
The word “Shangri-La” and “S” logo were adopted
and used by the Kuok Group as part of their corporate names and the names of
their hotels;
3.
Petitioners' claim of legal and beneficial
ownership of mark and logo is baseless and unwarranted;
4.
Change of theory from owner to one who may be
damaged as entitled to relief is not allowable;
5.
Finding of registration in patent offices in
different countries around the world is inaccurate;
6.
DGCI's registration of the “Shangri-La” mark and
the “S” logo is valid because there was at least two months’ use thereof
prior to application;
7.
Section 2-A of R.A. No. 166 requires the actual
commercial use of trademarks in the Philippines pursuant to the principle of
territoriality applicable to trademarks. Hence, petitioners' use of subject
marks outside of Philippine territory did not confer on them any ownership
rights thereto under Philippine laws;
8.
The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals'
failure to find any bad faith on the part of DGCI is conclusive on the Supreme
Court;
9.
DGCI's use of the subject marks in the
Philippines is entitled to protection under the territoriality principle of
trademarks.[2]
The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant’s previous
arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration,
by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the
decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an
obstacle for a reconsideration,[3] the hard
reality is that movant has failed to raise
matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the
desired course of action.
Considering that the grounds
presently raised have been sufficiently
considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision,
it behooves movant to
convince the Court that certain findings or
conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is,
however, the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial
legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought.
Movant DGCI would make capital on the
alleged danger the subject Decision might wreak upon
Philippine trademark law, claiming that the decision in question
would render nugatory the protection
intended by the trademark law to all Philippine trademark registrants.
This assertion is a baseless and sweeping statement. The
interpretation of Republic Act No. 166 in the Decision
does not in any way diminish the protection afforded to valid trademark registrations made under said law. It was glaringly
obvious, however, from the testimony of movant’s own witness that DGCI’s registration
of the subject mark and logo was void due to
the existence of bad faith and the absence of the requisite 2-month prior use.
Despite movant's melodramatic imputation of an
abandonment of the territoriality principle, the Decision
actually upholds the principle but found that respondent DGCI was not
entitled to protection thereunder due to the double
infirmity which attended its registration of the subject
mark and logo.
Anent DGCI's assertion of a change of theory on the
part of the petitioners, suffice it to say that the latter have never budged from seeking relief as rightful,
legal and/or beneficial owners of the mark and logo in dispute. The Decision
ruled favorably on the veracity of the petitioners'
claim:
xxx It would be a great injustice to adjudge the
petitioners guilty of infringing a mark when they are actually the originator
and creator thereof.
Nor can the petitioners' separate
personalities from their mother corporation be an obstacle in the enforcement
of their rights as part of the Kuok Group of
Companies and as official repository, manager and operator of the subject mark
and logo. Besides, R.A. No. 166 did not require the party seeking
relief to be the owner of the mark but “any person who believes that he is or
will be damaged by the registration of a mark or trade name.”[4] [Emphasis
supplied]
Clearly, from the
word “Besides” used in the context of the aforequoted paragraph, all that the Decision says is that even if
petitioners were not the owners, they would still have a right
of action under the law. There was never an attempt on their
part at an eleventh-hour change of theory, as movant DGCI
wishes to portray.
WHEREFORE, the instant motion
for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO
ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
(No part)
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O
N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above resolution were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice