PRO LINE SPORTS CENTER, INC., and QUESTOR CORPORATION vs.

COURT OF
APPEALS, UNIVERSAL ATHLETICS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC., and MONICO
SEHWANI
G.R. NO. 118192, May 21, 1984

Facts:
Proline is the exclusive distributor of Spalding sports products in the Philippines,
while Questor, a US-based corporation became the owner of the trademark
Spalding. They filed a petition against respondent Universal, a domestic
corporation which manufactures and sell sports goods including fake Spalding
balls. By virtue of valid search warrant, Universals factory was searched resulting
to the seizure of fake spalding balls and the instruments used in the manufacture
thereof. Civil and criminal cases were filed against Universal. The civil case was
dropped for it was doubtful whether Questor had indeed acquired the registration
rights over the mark Spalding. The criminal case was also dismissed due to
insufficiency of evidence through a demurer. The CA affirmed the lower courts
decision. Universal thereafter, filed for damages against Proline and Questor which
was granted by the lower court and affirmed by the CA.

Issue:
Are Proline and Questor liable for damages to Universal for the wrongful recourse to
court proceedings?

Held:
Pro Line and Questor cannot be adjudged liable for damages for the alleged
unfounded suit. Universal failed to show that the filing of criminal charges of
petitioner herein was bereft of probable cause. Petitioner could not have been
moved by legal malice in instituting the criminal complaint for unfair competition.
We are disposed, under circumstances to hold that Pro line authorized agent of
Questor, exercised sound judgment in taking the necessary legal steps to safeguard
the interest of its principal with respect to the trademark in question.

Case Title: MANOLO P. SAMSON, petitioner, vs. HON. REYNALDO B. DAWAY,

in his capacity
as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90, PEOPLE
OF THE
PHILIPPINES and CATERPILLAR, INC., respondents. (G.R. Nos. 160054-55,
July 21, 2004)

Facts:
The petitioner, owner/proprietor of ITTI Shoes/Mano Shoes Manufactuirng
Corporation,
allegedly sold or offers the sale of garment product using the trademark
Caterpillar to the
prejudice of Caterpillar, Inc., private respondent in this case. The respondent filed
the case with
the RTC. The petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court over the offense
charged
contending that the case should be filed with the MTC because violation of unfair
competition is
penalized with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years under RA 7691.
Issue:
Which court has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases for violation of intellectual
property
rights?
Ruling of the Court:
The SC held that under Section 163 of the IPC, actions for unfair competition shall
be brought
before the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under existing laws. The law
contemplated
in Section 163 of IPC is RA 166 otherwise known as the Trademark Law. Section 27
of the
Trademark Law provides that jurisdiction over cases for infringement of registered
marks, unfair
competition, false designation of origin and false description or representation, is
lodged with the
Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court). Since RA 7691 is a general law and
IPC in

relation to Trademark Law is a special law, the latter shall prevail. Actions for unfair
competition
therefore should be filed with the RTC