Anda di halaman 1dari 30

G.R. No.

217194
SOCIETE DES PRODUITS,
NESTLE, S.A.
 (Petitioner)

PUREGOLD PRICE CLUB, INC. 


(Respondent)
THE CASE
a petition for review on certiorari 
15 May 2014 Resolution
14 October 2014 Resolution  of  the 
Court  of  Appeals  (CA)  in  CA-G.R. SP
No. 134592.
THE FACTS
Petitioner Societe des
Produits Nestle, S.A.
(Nestle)
laws of Switzerland 
coffee, ice cream, chocolates, cereals,
sauces, soups, condiment mixes, dairy
and non-dairy products, etc.
THE FACTS
Respondent Puregold Price Club, Inc.
(Puregold)
Philippine law 
trading goods such as consumer 
goods on wholesale or on retail basis.
THE FACTS
June 14, 2007
Puregold filed an application for the
registration of the trademark
 

coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, artificial coffee,


flour and  preparations  made  from 
cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery,
and honey
THE FACTS
December 5, 2008
Nestle filed an opposition 
◦ there is confusing similarity
◦ exclusive owner
◦ internationally well-known mark 
◦ it would suffer damages
The Decision of the Bureau
of Legal Affairs-Intellectual
Property Office (BLA-IPO)
April 16, 2012
THE BLA-IPO DISMISSED NESTLE'S OPPOSITION
opposition was defective 
◦ the  verification  and  certification  against  forum 
shopping  attached  to  Nestle's  opposition  did  not 
include  a  board  of  directors'  resolution  or 
secretary's  certificate  stating  Mr.  Dennis  Jose  R. 
Barot's (Barot) authority to act on behalf of Nestle. 
◦ sufficient ground to dismiss
The Decision of the
(BLA-IPO)
word  "COFFEE“ is  not unique or highly
distinctive.
both  contain  the  same  first  three  letters, 
the last two in Puregold's mark rendered a 
visual and aural character that  makes  it 
easily distinguishable
The Decision of the
(BLA-IPO)

consumer cannot mistake the mark and 
the products
June 11, 2012

Nestle filed an appeal with  the  Office


of the Director General of the
Intellectual Property Office (ODG-
IPO).
The Decision of the ODG-
IPO
February 7, 2014
ODG-IPO DISMISSED NESTLE'S APPEAL
Barot's  authority  to  sign  was  not  sufficiently 
proven by Nestle
Barot's  authority  should  be  accompanied  by 
proof or evidence of his authority from Nestle. 
not confusingly similar 
consumers  would  unlikely  be  deceived  or 
confused
The Decision of the
ODG-IPO
"COFFEE“  cannot  be  exclusively 
appropriated 
it  is  generic or descriptive of  the  goods  in 
question. 
no  visual,  phonetic,  or  conceptual 
similarity between the two marks. 
April 14, 2014
Nestle filed a Petition for Review
with the Court of Appeals.
The Decision of the CA
May 15, 2014 
CA DISMISSED NESTLE'S PETITION FOR
REVIEW
1.  the  title  thereof  does  not  bear  the  name  of 
party respondent
2. there  is  no  board  resolution  and/or 
secretary's certificate to prove the authority of 
Dennis  Jose  R.  Barot  to  file  the  petition  and  to 
sign  the  Verification/Certification  of  Non-Forum 
Shopping on behalf of petitioner-corporation
The Decision of the CA
3. certified  true  copies  of  material 
[portions]  of  the  record  were  not
attached.

The above considering, the Court RESOLVES


to DISMISS the petition outright.
June 13, 2014 
Nestle  filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which  was  DENIED by the
CA on 14 October 2014. 

it is without merit
petitioner  filed  beyond the 15-day
reglementary period. (Under  Rule  43, 
Section 4 of the Rules of Court)
THE ISSUES
Nestle presented the following issues:
1.  The  Honorable  Court  of  Appeals  erred 
in  dismissing  petitioner's  motion  for 
reconsideration  upon  an  erroneous 
appreciation  of  certain  antecedent  facts, 
and similarly erred in dismissing the petition 
for review on procedural grounds.
2. There is merit to the substantive issues 
raised  by  petitioner,  which  deserves  to  be 
given due course and a final ruling.
The Ruling of this
Court
“WE DENY THE PETITION.”
Procedural issues in this case:
Nestle  filed  its  petition  for  review
within the period granted by the Court of 
Appeals.
The  CA  dismissed  Nestle's  petition  for 
review  on  the  ground  that  Nestle  filed  its 
petition  for  review  after  the  15-day 
reglementary  period  required  by  Section 
4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Under Rule 43, Section 4 of
the Rules of Court (Period of
Appeal)
within fifteen (15) days
Only one (1) motion for reconsideration
shall be allowed.
may grant an additional period of fifteen
(15) days 
March 14, 2014 March 27, 2014

Decision of the  Nestle filed a 
ODG-IPO was  motion for
received by  extension with 
Nestle's the CA.

• gives petitioner until April 13, 2014

April 14, 2014


Nestle failed to properly
execute a certification
against forum shopping
as required by Section
5, Rule 7 of the Rules of
Court.
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING
I, _______________________, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in accordance
with law, depose and state that:
1. I am a plaintiff in the above-stated case;
2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct of
my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and records in my
possession;
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is pending in
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this
Honorable Court.
      ___________________________
                                                             Affiant

                 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of __________ 200_ at


_________________ affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate
No.____________________ issued on ________________ 200_ at ______________ City.
 
Doc. No. ;
Page No. ;
Failure to comply
not  be  curable  by  mere  amendment  of 
the complaint 
cause for the dismissal of the case 
without  prejudice,  unless  otherwise 
provided,  upon  motion  and  after 
hearing. 
Juridical persons
cannot  personally  sign  the  certification 
against forum shopping
must  act  through  an  authorized
representative.
exercise  of  corporate  powers  is  lodged 
with the board of directors 
selected or authorized collectively by the
board of directors. 
Nestle acknowledged that:
there is no board resolution and/or
secretary's certificate to  prove  the 
authority  of  Dennis  Jose  R.  Barot  to  file 
the  petition  and  Verification/Certification 
of  NonForum  Shopping  on  behalf  of 
petitioner-corporation
 there is a Power of Attorney evidencing 
such authority
The  power  of  attorney  was  signed  by 
Celine Jorge. 
the  authority  of  Celine  Jorge  was not
accompanied by a board resolution or
secretary's certificate from Nestle
showing that Celine Jorge was authorized 
by  the  board  of  directors  of  Nestle  to 
execute the power of attorney in favor of 
Barot.
Puregold's mark
may be registered.
The  word  "COFFEE"  is  the  common
dominant feature. 
the word "COFFEE" cannot be exclusively
appropriated since  it  is generic or
descriptive of  the  goods  they  seek  to 
identify.
we must look at the word or words paired 
with the generic or descriptive word
We agree with the findings of the BLA-IPO 
and ODG-IPO.
distinctive  features  of  both  marks  are 
sufficient to warn the purchasing public
"MATCH"  rendered  a visual and aural
character
the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  consumer  would 
not  mistake  Nestle's  product  for 
Puregold's product. 
likelihood  of  confusion  their  product  does
not exist
upholds the registration of  Puregold's 
mark

Anda mungkin juga menyukai