This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-06-29 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| In Conrad and Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[31] as reiterated in the case of Shangri-La International Hotel Management Ltd. v. Court of Appeals,[32] the Court clarified that while an administrative cancellation of a registered trademark, on any of the grounds under Section 17 of R.A. No. 166, is within the ambit of the BPTTT, an action for infringement or any other incidental remedy sought is within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. Thus, | |||||
|
2001-06-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The case of Conrad and Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[18] is in point. We held: We cannot see any error in the above disquisition. It might be mentioned that while an application for the administrative cancellation of a registered trademark on any of the grounds enumerated in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 166, as amended, otherwise known as the Trade-Mark Law, falls under the exclusive cognizance of BPTTT (Sec. 19, Trade-Mark Law), an action, however, for infringement or unfair competition, as well as the remedy of injunction and relief for damages, is explicitly and unquestionably within the competence and jurisdiction of ordinary courts. | |||||