This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-03-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In trademark cases, particularly in ascertaining whether one trademark is confusingly similar to another, no rigid set rules can plausible be formulated. Each case must be decided on its merits, with due regard to the goods or services involved, the usual purchaser's character and attitude, among others. In such cases, even more than in any other litigation, precedent must be studied in the light of the facts of a particular case. That is the reason why in trademark cases, jurisprudential precedents should be applied only to a case if they are specifically in point.[43] | |||||
|
2014-08-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Although the court is afforded judicial discretion in imposing treble costs, there remains a need to show that it is sound and with basis - that is "taking all the pertinent circumstances into due consideration."[22] In the assailed CA Resolution, dated August 5, 2011, granting De Guzman's motion for partial reconsideration, the CA merely wrote: Indeed, we have ruled that the petition was filed patently without merit. While petitioner claims that it was not filed "maliciously" and "in bad faith," we however ruled that 'it is mind boggling why petitioner would exert every effort to implead him as co-defendant when records clearly show that he was merely acting in his official capacity.' Records further show that private respondent has indeed participated in the case since 2002 and ever since had been insisting that he was not the real party-in-interest.[23] | |||||