1.

Patricio Ubeda vs Agapito Zialcita

G.R No. L4392, February 17, 1909
Facts: The plaintiff, Patricio Ubeda is the owner of the registered trademark “Ginebra
Tres Campanas” who claimed that the defendant, Agapito Zialcita, sells gin in bottles
bearing the same trademark and labels. He claimed to have the said mark registered at
the office of the Direccion General de Administracion Civil of the Spanish Government
on December 24, 1898. The only difference between the two is the name and the
owner’s mark; the latter is “Ginebra de dos Campanas”. The plaintiff further claimed that
his sales plummeted when the defendant started to sell his own gin product. The
plaintiff prayed that the defendant indemnify him for loss and damages, be forever
prohibited from using the device or trademark bearing any resemblance to those of the
plaintiff and lastly to pay the costs of the proceeding.
Issue: Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled for indemnity against the defendant for
violation of trademark rights
Held: No. The plaintiff, according to the records, showed that he was an importer of gin
from Antwerp bearing the same trademark and Label of Van Den Bergh & Co.," Ginebra
de la Campana". Upon further proceedings, a license was issued by the Direccion
General to use the trademark of the imported gin from Antwerp. However, the issued
title of ownership of the plaintiff on December 16, 1898 for a trade-mark was not the
same trademark described in the complaint. The issued license pertains only to the
imported gin from Antwerp not to the gin manufactured in the Philippines by the plaintiff-
appellant. Both persons fraudulently imitated the original trademark with only a variation
in name. Therefore, there is no injury to him who in turn appears as guilty of identical
usurpation.
2. Pedro Serano Laktaw vs. Mamerto Paglinawan
GR No. L-11937, April 1, 1918
Facts: Plaintiff Pedro Laktaw authored a literary work entitled “Diccionario Hispano-
Tagalog” published in 1889. Allegedly, the defendant Mamerto Paglinawan reproduced
the said literary work, copied the greater part of Pedro’s work and published it as
“Diccionariong Kastila-Tagalog” without the consent of Pedro. This act is a direct
violation of Article 7 of the Law of January 10, 1879, on Intellectual Property. For this
reason, the plaintiff prayed the court to order the defendant to withdraw from sale all
stock of the work and to pay the plaintiff the sum of $10,000. The Court of First Instance
of the City of Manila ruled otherwise stating that the defendant’s work does not show as
an improper copy of the Pedros work since it has been published and offered for sale
for about twenty-five years. Hence, the plaintiff appealed the said judgment
Issue: Whether or not reproduction of another's dictionary without the owner's consent
does not constitute a violation of the Law of Intellectual Property
Held: No, the reproduction of another’s dictionary without the owner’s consent
constitutes a violation of the Law of Intellectual Property. In the judgment appealed
from, the court gives one to understand that the reproduction of another's dictionary
without the owner's consent does not constitute a violation of the Law of Intellectual
Property; “Dictionaries have to be made with the aid of others, and they are improved by
the increase of words”. The higher court says otherwise, “Such idea is very erroneous,
especially in relation to the Law of Intellectual Property.” Article 7 of said law states that:
“The protection of the law cannot be denied to the author of a dictionary, for although
words are not the property of anybody, their definitions, the example that explain their
sense, and the manner of expressing their different meanings, may constitute a special
work.” The said works were compared and it was found out that out of the 23,560
Spanish words in the defendant's dictionary, only 3,108 words are the defendant's own
work. The defendant has added only this number of words to those that are in the
plaintiff's dictionary, he having reproduced or copied the remaining 20,452 words. The
court reverse the judgment appealed from and order the defendant to withdraw from
sale, as prayed for in the complaint, all stock of his work above-mentioned, and to pay
the costs of the proceeding
3. Wigberto E. Taada,et.al. vs Edgardo Angara, et.al.
G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997
Facts: The then Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry on April 15,1994
Represented the Philippines and signed the Final Act Embodying the Results of the
Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations in Morocco. By signing the Final Act,
Secretary Navarro on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, agreed to the following:
to submit, as appropriate, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement for the
consideration of their respective competent authorities, with a view to seeking approval
of the Agreement in accordance with their procedures; and to adopt the Ministerial
Declarations and Decisions. Subsequently, the Senate on December 14, 1994
concurred, in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization, and the various agreements and associated
legal instruments. However, the petitioner contends that the said membership is in
conflict with the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, specifically Art.11, sec 19, and Art.
12, sec 10.

Issue: Whether or not the said agreement is in conflict with the 1987 constitution
Held: No, the treaty is in harmony with the generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land and the adherence of the amity with all nations. The
deliberation and voting of the senate, voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave its consent to
the WTO agreement, thereby making it a part of the law of the land. The 1987
Constitution does not prohibit our country from participating in worldwide trade
liberalization and economic globalization and from integrating into a global economy
that is liberalized, deregulated and privatized. The Court states: “It is true, as alleged by
petitioners, that broad constitutional principles require the State to develop an
independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos; and to protect and/or
prefer Filipino labor, products, domestic materials and locally produced goods. But it is
equally true that such principles -- while serving as judicial and legislative guides -- are
not in themselves sources of causes of action.” The petition was dismissed for lack of
merit.