, and THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS Facts: On February 12, 1957, respondent company, a foreign corporation, filed with respondent Director of Patents an application for registration (pursuant to Republic Act No. 166) of the trademark "Adagio" for the brassieres manufactured by it. In its application, respondent company alleged that said trademark was first used by it in the United States on October 26, 1937, and in the Philippines on August 31, 1946; that it had been continuously used by it in trade in, or with the Philippines for over 10 years; that said trademark "is on the date of this application, actually used by respondent company on the following goods, classified according to the official classification of goods (Rule 82) - Brassieres, Class 40"; and that said trademark is applied or affixed by respondent to the goods by placing thereon a woven label on which the trademark is shown. Acting on said application, respondent Director, on August 13, 1957, approved for publication in the Official Gazette said trademark of respondent company, in accordance with Section 7 of Republic Act No. 166 (Trademark Law), having found, inter alia, that said trademark is "a fanciful and arbitrary use of a foreign word adopted by applicant as a trademark for its product; that it is neither a surname nor a geographical term, nor any that comes within the purview of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 166; and that the mark as used by respondent company convincingly shows that it identifies and distinguishes respondent company's goods from others." On October 17, 1957, respondent Director issued to respondent company a certificate of registration of with, trademark "Adagio". On February 26, 1958, petitioner filed with respondent Director a petition for cancellation of said trademark, on the grounds that it is a common descriptive name of an article or substance on which the patent has expired; that its registration was obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of Section 4, Chapter II of Republic Act No. 166; and that the application for its registration was not filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 37, Chapter XI of the same Act. Petitioner also alleged that said trademark has not become distinctive of respondent company's goods or business; that it has been used by respondent company to classify the goods (the brassieres) manufactured by it, in the same manner as petitioner uses the same; that said trademark has been used by petitioner for almost 6 years; that it has become a common descriptive name; and that it is not registered in accordance with the requirements of Section 37(a), Chapter XI of Republic Act No. 166. Issues: 1. Whether or not the trademark "Adagio" has become a common descriptive name of a particular style of brassiere and is, therefore, unregistrable. (It is urged that said trademark had been used by local brassiere manufacturers since 1948, without objection on the part of respondent company.). 2. Whether or not respondent Director erred in registering the trademark in question, despite appellee's non-compliance with Section 37, paragraphs 1 and 4 (a) of Republic Act No. 166. 3. Whether or not the registration the trademark in question was fraudulent or contrary Section 4 of Republic Act No. 166. 4. Whether or not respondent Director erred in declaring illegal the appropriation in the Philippines of the trademark in question by appellant.

Held: 1. This claim is without basis in fact. The evidence shows that the trademark "Adagio" is a musical term, which means slowly or in an easy manner, and was used as a trademark by the owners thereof (the Rosenthals of Maiden Form Co., New York) because they are musically inclined. Being a musical term, it is used in an arbitrary (fanciful) sense as a trademark for brassieres manufactured by respondent company. It also appears that respondent company has, likewise, adopted other musical terms such as "Etude", "Chansonette" "Prelude" "Over-ture", and "Concerto", to identify, as a trademark, the different styles or types of its brassieres. As respondent Director pointed out, "the fact that said mark is used also to designate a particular style of brassiere, does not affect its registrability as a trademark" It is not true that respondent company did not object to the use of said trademark by petitioner and other local brassiere manufacturers. The records show that respondent company's agent, Mr. Schwartz, warned the Valleson Department Store to desist from the sale of the "Adagio" Royal Form brassieres manufactured

. and others) warning the public against unlawful use of said trademark.. partnerships or associations domiciled . (Overture). 3. Blackman (268 NYS 653). and voluntary. own by persons. Ed. Fookien Times. Brassieres are usually of different types or styles. as heretofore stated. and W6. v. does not affect the validity of such word as a trademark." Section 37 of Republic Act No. or service marks are actually in use in commerce and services not less than two months in the Philippines before the time the applications for registration are filed: . intentional. Manila Times. 166 can be availed of only where the Philippines is a party to an international convention or treaty relating to trademarks.. and appellee has used different trademarks for every type as shown by its labels. . the registration of the mark was made in accordance with the Trademark Law. What are registrable — Trademarks. corporations. The evidence record shows. such temporary non-use did not affect the rights of appellee because it was occasioned by government restrictions and was not permanent. whereas appellant was the later user. that the trademark "Adagio" was first exclusively in the Philippines by a appellee in the year 1932. trade-names. There is no evidence to show that the registration of the trademark "Adagio" was obtained fraudulently by appellee. In Winthrop Chemical Co. 48. it was held that widespread dissemination does not justify the defendants in the use of the trademark. The mere fact that appellee uses "Adagio" for one type or style.. v. Respondent company's long and continuous use of the trademark "Adagio" has not rendered it merely descriptive of the product. W-3 (Chansonette). 39 S.by petitioner. This contention flows from a misconception of the application for registration of trademark of respondent. cited by appellant. 63 L. 248 U. or that appellee abandoned use thereof. respondent's application was filed under the provisions of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 90. constitute abandonment of the trademark as to entitle anyone to its free use.. 2.. such fact did not. As we see it. is not applicable to the present case. 2. Exhibits W-2 (Etude). Ct. That said trademarks. because of non-compliance by appellee of Section 37 of Republic Act No. Appellant urges that its appropriation of the trademark in question cannot be considered illegal under Philippine laws. 166 as amended by Section 1 of Republic Act 865 which reads as follows: "SEC..S. and even placed an advertisement in the local newspapers (Manila Daily Bulletin. Granting that appellant used the trade-mark at the time appellee stopped using it due to government restrictions on certain importations. in which the trade-mark sought to be registered need not be use in the Philippines. The case of United Drug Co. 166. But we have already shown that Section 37 is not the provision invoked by respondent because the Philippines is not as yet a party to any international convention or treaty relating to trademarks. There being no evidence of use of the mark by others before 1932. 141. Granting that appellant used the mark when appellee stopped using it during the period of time that the Government imposed restrictions on importation of respondent's brassiere bearing the trademark. on the other hand. Rectanus. W-5 (Maidenette). as the records show that appellee was the first user of the trademark in the Philippines. W-4 (Prelude). 4. in any foreign country may be registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided.

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited (Shell International). respectively. belief. Machinery and/or equipment being used or intended to be used for the purpose of illegally refilling LPG cylinders belonging to Petron. YAO. Ltd. sell and distribute SHELLANE LPG containers and products. 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. filed with the RTC a Motion for the Return of Motor Compressor and LPG Refilling Machine. counterfeit. YAO JR. selling. It is the only corporation in the Philippines authorized to allow refillers and distributors to refill. The peace officers seized the items. SHELL INTL PETROLEUM CO. against petitioners and other occupants of the MASAGANA compound located at Governors Drive. Petron is the registered owner in the Philippines of the trademarks GASUL and GASUL cylinders used for its LPG products. 8293 identifies the acts constituting trademark infringement. 3-2003. Pilipinas Shell. 2-2003 and No. Use in commerce any reproduction. Any person who shall. 155. or to cause mistake. Empty/filled LPG cylinder tanks/containers. 2-2003. bearing PetronCorporations (Petron) tradename and its tradename GASUL and other devices owned and/or used exclusively by Petron. as third party claimant. It is the sole entity in the Philippines authorized to allow refillers and distributors to refill. Cavite City. WILLIAM C. and its Principal. PETRON CORPORATION and PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. sale and distribution of SHELLANE LPGs... that these items were used in the operation of its legitimate business. copy. Cavite City. without authority and in violation of the rights of the said entities. without the consent of the owner of the registered mark: 155. LUISA C. Presiding Judge of the RTC. or designs of its principal. Oblanca (Oblanca) filed two applications for search warrant with the RTC. trademarks. Ltd.. under Search Warrants No. YAO vs. or to deceive. National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent Ritche N. Barangay Lapidario. symbols. thus: SEC. sell. and bearing the tradenames. and devices of Petron and Pilipinas Shell. 8293. trademarks. and that their seizure will jeopardize its business interests. LTD.. and personal verification of Oblanca. etc. RICHARD C. Held: Section 155 of Republic Act No. Under Search Warrant No. offering for sale. SR. Branch 17. These motions were denied. Private respondents Petron Corporation (Petron) and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Pilipinas Shell) are two of the largest bulk suppliers and producers of LPG in the Philippines. On 30 April 2003. in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. sale and distribution of LPG products. Remedies. YAO. MASAGANA. is the authorized user in the Philippines of the tradename. offering for sale and/or distributing LPG products using steel cylinders owned by. Facts: Petitioners are incorporators and officers of MASAGANA GAS CORPORATION (MASAGANA). otherwise known as The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Their LPG products are sold under the marks GASUL and SHELLANE. Cavite City.IP case WILLIAM C. use.1. claimed that it is the owner of the said motor compressor and LPG refilling machine. the petitioners are actually producing. Issue: Whether or not MASAGANA constituted trademark infringement. including the marks SHELLANE and SHELL device in connection with the production. found probable cause and correspondingly issued Search Warrants No. Branch 17. or colorable imitation of a registered mark or the same container or a dominant feature thereof in connection with the sale. products and its trademarks. stated in the search warrants such as .. Infringement. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. YAO. 3-2003: Empty/filled LPG cylinder tanks/containers. SHELL (Device) of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation and the trademarks and other devices owned by Shell International Petroleum Company. and ROGER C. TreceMartires. use. an entity engaged in the refilling. distribution..The two applications for search warrant uniformly alleged that per information. etc. and distribute GASUL LPG containers. for alleged violation of Section 155. bearing the tradename SHELLANE. [7]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary On 3 April 2003. or . on the other hand. Machinery and/or equipment being used or intended to be used for the purpose of illegally refilling LPG cylinders belonging to Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation bearing the latters tradename as well as the marks belonging to Shell International Petroleum Company.

or to cause mistake. prints. mistake or deception among the buyers/consumers can be considered as trademark infringement. he noticed stock piles of multi-branded cylinders including GASUL and SHELLANE LPG cylinders. through MASAGANA. mere unauthorized use of a container bearing a registered trademark in connection with the sale. that while they were inside the MASAGANA compound. Extant from the testimonial. or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion. shall be liable in a civil action for infringement by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter set forth: Provided. In his sworn affidavits. use. that he confirmed from Petron and Pilipinas Shell that MASAGANA is not authorized to sell.1 or this subsection are committed regardless of whether there is actual sale of goods or services using the infringing material. have been using the LPG cylinders bearing the marks GASUL and SHELLANE without permission from Petron and Pilipinas Shell. counterfeit. that. that the said GASUL and SHELLANE LPG cylinders were refilled in their presence by the MASAGANA employees. Reproduce. or to deceive. documentary and object evidence is that Oblanca and Alajarhave personal knowledge of the fact that petitioners. copy or colorable imitation to labels. distribution or advertising of goods or services which is ikely to cause confusion. distribution. that he and Alajar monitored the activities of MASAGANA in its refilling plant station located within its compound at Governors Drive. copy or colorably imitate a registered mark or a dominant feature thereof and apply such reproduction. Trece Martires. packages. wrappers. offering for sale. signs. Cavite City. using different names. Oblanca stated that before conducting an investigation on the alleged illegal activities of MASAGANA.155. he reviewed the certificates of trademark registrations issued by the Philippine Intellectual Property Office in favor of Petron and Pilipinas Shell. and that they observed delivery trucks loaded with GASUL and SHELLANE LPG cylinders coming in and out of the MASAGANA compound and making deliveries to various retail outlets. receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale. That the infringement takes place at the moment any of the acts stated in Subsection 155. they conducted two test-buys therein where they purchased LPG cylinders bearing the trademarks GASUL and SHELLANE. counterfeit. Barangay Lapidario. a probable cause for trademark infringement.2. As can be gleaned in Section 155.1. . refill or distribute GASUL and SHELLANE LPG cylinder containers. These allegations were corroborated by Alajar in his separate affidavits.

the vessel lifted anchor again on July 10.M. If the interruption should be caused by the disability of the vessel. QUINTOS. The governing provisions are found in the Code of Commerce and read as follows: ART. shall indemnify all the losses which his failure may cause.Maritime Law Case SWEET LINES. A captain who. Private respondents had no recourse but to disembark and board a ferryboat to Catbalogan. The record also discloses that there were 50 passengers for Tacloban compared to 20 passengers for Catbalogan.J.M. Hence. In case of interruption of a voyage already begun. of July 9. 1972. In defense. Incorporated to pay to the plaintiffs. The crucial factor then is the existence of a fortuitous event or force majeure. INC. arriving there at about 4:00 P. he may not be required to pay any increased fare of passage. even granting arguendo that the engine failure was a fortuitous event.M. 1972. having agreed to make a voyage. Repairs having been accomplished. The passenger's acceptance of this ticket shall be considered as an acceptance of the following conditions: . as admitted by petitioner's General Manager. mechanical defects in the carrier are not considered a caso fortuito that exempts the carrier from responsibility. In fact.class tickets from petitioner at the latter's office in Cebu City. but with a right to indemnity. 1972. without being prevented by fortuitous event or force majeure. bound for Catbalogan. JOSE BACATAN. They were to board petitioner's vessel. the vessel set sail at 3:00 A. which was the first port of call. vs. if the interruption should have been caused by the captain exclusively. on the same day. after docking at Tacloban City. this suit for damages for breach of contract of carriage which the Trial Court. affirmed by respondent Appellate Court ordering the defendant Sweet Lines. Held: Yes. FR. and ART. Without it. without prejudice to criminal penalties which may be proper. without right to recover damages if the interruption is due to fortuitous event or force majeure. and the passenger should agree to wait for her repairs.M. there was no longer any force majeure that justified by-passing a port of call. of July 10. Issue: Whether or not Sweet Lines. was to enable the vessel to catch up with its schedule for the next week. Instead of docking at Catbalogan. As found by both Courts below. Western Samar. 1972 at around 8:00 A. petitioner cannot rely on the conditions in small bold print at the back of the ticket reading. MARCIANO CABRAS and ANDREA VELOSO Facts: Private respondents purchased first. fails to fulfill his undertaking. Instead of departing at the scheduled hour of about midnight on July 8. so that the Catbalogan phase could be scrapped without too much loss for the company. In the first place. The vessel was completely repaired the following day after it was towed back to Cebu. there was no fortuitous event or force majeure which prevented the vessel from fulfilling its undertaking of taking private respondents to Catbalogan. breached its contract of carriage. 614. it left the next day for Manila to complete its voyage. Inc. the passengers shall only be obliged to pay the fare in proportion to the distance covered. 1972 only to be towed back to Cebu due to engine trouble. but his living expenses during the delay shall be for his own account. In the second place. the vessel proceeded direct to Tacloban at around 9:00 P. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. M/V Sweet Grace. it accounted only for the delay in departure. MICAELA B. the right to damages and indemnity exists against a captain who fails to fulfill his undertaking or where the interruption has been caused by the captain exclusively. 698.. When the vessel finally left the port of Cebu on July 10. S. The reason for by-passing the port of Catbalogan..

petitioner did not comply with the same. xxx xxx xxx 11. The sailing schedule of the vessel for which this ticket was issued is subject to change without previous notice. Furthermore. this controversy would not have arisen. The owner of a vessel and the ship agent shall be civilly liable for the acts of the captain. Had petitioner notified them previously. or refunded the value of the tickets purchased. the carrier reserves the right to bring the passenger to his/her destination at the expense of the carrier or to cancel the ticket and refund the passenger the value of his/her ticket. Private respondents' complaint is directed not at the delayed departure the next day but at the by. the passengers' right to indemnity is evident. perhaps. It did not cancel the ticket nor did it refund the value of the tickets to private respondents. and offered to bring them to their destination at its expense. Besides. .passing of Catbalogan. The "interruption" was not due to fortuitous event or for majeure nor to disability of the vessel. (Exhibit "l -A") Even assuming that those conditions are squarely applicable to the case at bar. In case the vessel cannot continue or complete the trip for any cause whatsoever. Having been caused by the captain upon instruction of management.3. the conditions relied upon by petitioner cannot prevail over Articles 614 and 698 of the Code of Commerce heretofore quoted. it was not the vessel's sailing schedule that was involved. The voyage to Catbalogan was "interrupted" by the captain upon instruction of management. their destination.

in fact. If the loss or damage is not apparent. Held: With respect to the prescriptive period involving claims arising from shortage. The vessel is owned and operated by defendant Conti-Feed. loss of or damage to cargoes sustained during transit.. INC. 1992 (Exhibits C to C-2) and in the Barge Survey Report both submitted by Lorenzo Bituin (Exhibits C-3 and C-4). 7.467 metric tons of Indian Soya Beans shortdelivered. the customs broker. The subject cargo is part of the entire shipment of Indian Soya Bean Meal/India Rapeseed Meal loaded in bulk on board the said vessel for delivery to several consignees. who accordingly issued the corresponding Certificate of Discharge dated April 15. the vessel chief officer was immediately notified of the said short shipment by the cargo surveyor. M/V "Hui Yang" arrived at the port of Manila. also Exhibit I).R. All throughout the entire period of unloading operation. for transportation and delivery to Manila. the said vessel. At the instance of the plaintiff. a cargo check of the subject shipment was made by one Lorenzo Bituin of Erne Maritime and Allied Services. Thus. the ship agent of Conti-Feed. S. the law that governs the instant case is the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act17 (COGSA). per the bill of lading. this alleged shortage of 80. RCS Shipping Agencies." at Bedi Bunder.. was the one which. FARMS. The survey conducted and the resultant findings thereon are embodied in the Report of Superintendence dated April 21. and Wallem Philippines Shipping.Maritime Law Case WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING. . who noted a shortage in the shipment which was placed at 80. The offloading of the shipment went on until April 15. 1992.. to pay the sum representing the value of the 80. a shipment of Indian Soya Bean Meal.53 metric tons. 1992 (Exhibit D). the NorthFront-333 and NorthFront-444. Petitioner then filed a Complaint for damages against Conti-Feed & Maritime Pvt.467 metric tons based on draft survey made on the NorthFront-33 and NorthFront-444 showing that the quantity of cargo unloaded from the vessel was only 1019.. Upon discovery thereof. BEDI 4 dated March 25. Pier 7 South Harbor.. there was an estimated shortage of 80. Thereafter. Inc. Section 3 (6) of which provides: Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be given in writing to the carrier or his agent at the port of discharge or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage. the arrastre operator at Anchorage No. the notice must be given within three days of delivery. respondent filed an Amended Complaint impleading herein petitioner as defendant alleging that the latter. India. As testified to by Lorenzo Bituin. 1993. 1992 (Exhibit A. Inc. 1992 and was handled by [Ocean Terminal Services. Ltd. Inc.100 metric tons and covered by Bill of Lading No. acted as Conti-Feed’s ship agent. Continental Enterprises. with legal interest from the time the judgment becomes final until full payment.467.] OTSI using its own manpower and equipment and without the participation of the crew members of the vessel. INC. Court of Appeals REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another one entered ordering defendants-appellees Conti-Feed and Maritime Pvt. such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading. Facts: On March 25. and Cargo Trade. with defendant [herein petitioner] Wallem as its ship agent. Inc. Inc. Co. (OTSI). the shipment was discharged and transferred into the custody of the receiving barges. South Harbor. RTC rendered its Decision dismissing respondent’s complaint. with plaintiff [herein respondent] as consignee/notify party. loaded on board the vessel M/V "Hui Yang. 1992. and not RCS. Among the consignees were San Miguel Corporation and Vitarich Corporation.467 metric tons was arrived at using the draft survey method which calls for the measurement of the light and loaded condition of the barge in relation to the weight of the water supposedly displaced. good and fair weather condition prevailed. a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines and the owner of M/V "Hui Yang". including the herein plaintiff On April 11. On June 7. Ltd.. Issue: Whether or not the claim against petitioner was timely filed. Ocean Terminal Services. Manila. Ltd. vs. The said shipment is said to weigh 1.

Petitioner also avers that.may be applied suppletorily to the case at bar. There is no dispute that the vessel carrying the shipment arrived at the Port of Manila on April 11. Thus. Under Section 3 (6) of the COGSA. either apparent or concealed. reckoned from April 15. It asserts that the cargo was fully discharged from the vessel on April 15. Admittedly. v. the statute of limitation runs until the submission of the amendment. The exception. 1992. petitioner was not impleaded as a defendant in the original complaint filed on March 11. . the date when the subject cargo was fully unloaded from the vessel. was filed. respondent’s claim had already prescribed because the complaint for damages was filed more than one year after the shipment was discharged. notice of loss or damages must be filed within three days of delivery.1awph!l As the records would show. the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) -. cargoes sustained during transit -. In the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage. 1993 that the Amended Complaint. 1992. if a notice of loss or damage. Chief Justice Hilario G. Hence. would not apply to the party impleaded for the first time in the amended complaint. the one-year prescriptive period had already lapsed. or damage to. however. was filed on March 11. but that respondent failed to file any written notice of claim. In the instant case. as an exception.Provided. Luzon Stevedoring Corporation. The rule on the non-applicability of the curative and retroactive effect of an amended complaint. 1993. 1993.25 In the said case.19 the Court ruled that a claim is not barred by prescription as long as the one-year period has not lapsed. has been established as early as in the case of Aetna Insurance Co. Respondent argues that the suit for damages was filed on March 11. or from the time the shipment was completely discharged from the vessel on April 15. however. insofar as newly impleaded defendants are concerned. The Court agrees. or one (1) year. one (1) month and twenty-three (23) days from April 15. Davide Jr. 1992 and that the cargo was completely discharged therefrom on April 15. 1992.Respondent cannot argue that the filing of the Amended Complaint against petitioner should retroact to the date of the filing of the original complaint. pursuant to the same provision of the COGSA. is not given as provided for in this section. a failure to file a notice of claim within three days will not bar recovery if a suit is nonetheless filed within one year from delivery of the goods or from the date when the goods should have been delivered. Under the same provision. the carrier and the receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to each other for inspecting and tallying the goods. that fact shall not affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. this Court has held that an amendment which merely supplements and amplifies facts originally alleged in the complaint relates back to the date of the commencement of the action and is not barred by the statute of limitations which expired after the service of the original complaint. Petitioner claims that pursuant to the above-cited provision. In Loadstar Shipping Co. Inc. respondent erred in arguing that the complaint for damages. The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods has at the time of their receipt been the subject of joint survey or inspection. It was only on June 7. However. in the words of the ponente. insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 1992. In the instant case. petitioner was only impleaded in the amended Complaint of June 7.which provides for a one-year period of limitation on claims for loss of. 1993. The order of the lower court dismissing the amended complaint against the said defendant on ground of prescription was affirmed by this Court. 1993. the Court is not persuaded by respondent’s claim that the complaint against petitioner was timely filed. respondent did not comply with this provision.. That. impleading petitioner as defendant. Court of Appeals. 1992.Said notice of loss or damage may be endorsed upon the receipt for the goods given by the person taking delivery thereof. the defendant Barber Lines Far East Service was impleaded for the first time in the amended complaint which was filed after the one-year period of prescription. the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. hence. In any event. The settled rule is that the filing of an amended pleading does not retroact to the date of the filing of the original. v. 1993. It is true that. which is within one year from the time the vessel carrying the subject cargo arrived at the Port of Manila on April 11.:Inasmuch as neither the Civil Code nor the Code of Commerce states a specific prescriptive period on the matter. respondent should have filed its Notice of Loss within three days from delivery.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful