Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
13Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
IPL-Shangri-la vs Developers Bank

IPL-Shangri-la vs Developers Bank

Ratings: (0)|Views: 377 |Likes:
Published by Sui

More info:

Published by: Sui on Aug 11, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/09/2014

pdf

text

original

 
FIRST DIVISION
 
[G.R. No. 159938, January 22, 2007]
 
SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT,LTD., SHANGRI-LA PROPERTIES, INC., MAKATISHANGRI-LA HOTEL & RESORT, INC., AND KUOK PHILIPPINES PROPERTIES, INC., PETITIONERS, VS.DEVELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC.,RESPONDENT.R E S O L U T I O N
 
GARCIA, J.:
Before the Court is this Motion for Reconsideration filed byrespondent Developers Group of Companies, Inc. (DGCI)praying for the reversal of this Court's Decision
[1]
of March31, 2006, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE
, the instant petition is
GRANTED
. Theassailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appealsdated May 15, 2003 and September 15, 2003, respectively,and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon Citydated March 8, 1996 are hereby
SET ASIDE.
Accordingly,the complaint for infringement in Civil Case No. Q-91-8476 isordered
DISMISSED
.In its motion, respondent-movant DGCI raises thefollowing grounds:1.The certification of non-forum shopping submitted bypetitioners is insufficient;2.The word “Shangri-La” and “S” logo were adoptedand used by the Kuok Group as part of theircorporate 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 bedamaged as entitled to relief is not allowable;5. Finding of registration in patent offices in differentcountries around the world is inaccurate;6. DGCI's registration of the “Shangri-La” mark andthe “S” logo is valid because there was at least twomonths’ use thereof prior to application;
7.
Section 2-A of R.A. No. 166 requires the actualcommercial use of trademarks in the Philippinespursuant to the principle of territoriality applicable totrademarks. Hence, petitioners' use of subject marksoutside of Philippine territory did not confer on themany 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 isconclusive on the Supreme Court;
9.
DGCI's use of the subject marks in the Philippines isentitled to protection under the territoriality principleof trademarks.
[2]
 The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant’s previous arguments. While DGCI is correct instating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature,may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decisionsought to be reconsidered and that this should not be anobstacle for a reconsideration,
[3]
the hard reality is thatmovant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible orcompellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action.Considering that the grounds presently raised have beensufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in thesubject Decision, it behooves movant to convince the Courtthat certain findings or conclusions in the Decision arecontrary to law. As it is, however, the instant motion doesnot raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reasonto justify the reconsideration sought.Movant DGCI would make capital on the allegeddanger the subject Decision might wreak upon Philippinetrademark law, claiming that the decision in question wouldrender nugatory the protection intended by the trademarklaw to all Philippine trademark registrants. This assertion is abaseless and sweeping statement. The interpretation of Republic Act No. 166 in the Decision does not in any waydiminish the protection afforded toÂ
valid 
Âtrademark registrations made under said law. It wasglaringly obvious, however, from the testimony of 

Activity (13)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Andrei Milaor liked this
Jesselle Maminta liked this
Janz Serrano liked this
acompanadotrina liked this
acompanadotrina liked this
acompanadotrina liked this
acompanadotrina liked this
acompanadotrina liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->