007 Sehwani Inc v. In-N-Out Burgers Inc. (DAGUMAN)

The trial court gave full credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on the reason that they
enjoyed the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their official functionsThe trial court gave full credence to the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses on the reason that they enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their official functionsThe trial court gave full credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
on the reason that they enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official functionsThe trial
court gave full credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on the reason that they enjoyed the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their official functionsThe trial court gave full credence to the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses on the reason that they enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their official functions
007 Sehwani Inc v. In-N-Out Burgers Inc. (DAGUMAN)

October 15, 2007 | Ynares-Santiago, J. | Trademark
PETITIONER: Sehwani Inc and/or Benita’s Frites

RESPONDENTS: In-N-Out Burger, Inc.
SUMMARY: in your own words kwento mo yung case here from its journey sa
lower courts hanggang ruling ng SC
DOCTRINE: rule of law that applied and how the court applied it
FACTS:
1. Respondent IN-N-OUT Burger, Inc., a foreign corporation organized under the laws of California, U.S.A.,
and not doing business in the Philippines, filed before the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the IPO (BLA-IPO),
an administrative complaint against petitioners Sehwani, Inc. and Benita’s Frites, Inc. for violation of
intellectual property rights, attorney’s fees and damages with prayer for the issuance of a restraining order
or writ of preliminary injunction
2. Respondent alleged that it is the owner of the tradename "IN-N-OUT" and trademarks "IN-N-OUT," "IN-
N-OUT Burger & Arrow Design" and "IN-N-OUT Burger Logo," which are used in its business since 1948
up to the present. These tradename and trademarks were registered in the United States as well as in other
parts of the world.
3. Respondent applied with the IPO for the registration of its trademark "IN-N-OUT Burger & Arrow Design"
and servicemark "IN-N-OUT." In the course of its application, respondent discovered that petitioner
Sehwani, Inc. had obtained Trademark Registration No. 56666 for the mark "IN N OUT" (THE INSIDE
OF THE LETTER "O" FORMED LIKE A STAR) on December 17, 1993 without its authority.Respondent
thus demanded that petitioner Sehwani, Inc. desist from claiming ownership of the mark "IN-N-OUT" and
to voluntarily cancel its Trademark Registration No. 56666. Petitioner Sehwani, Inc. however refused to
accede to the demand and even entered into a Licensing Agreement granting its co-petitioner Benita’s
Frites, Inc. license to use for a period of five years the trademark "IN-N-OUT BURGER" in its restaurant in
Pasig City. Hence, respondent filed a complaint for violation of intellectual property rights.
4. petitioners alleged that respondent lack the legal capacity to sue because it was not doing business in the
Philippines and that it has no cause of action because its mark is not registered or used in the Philippines.
Petitioner Sehwani, Inc. also claimed that as the registered owner of the "IN-N-OUT" mark, it enjoys the
presumption that the same was validly acquired and that it has the exclusive right to use the mark.
Moreover, petitioners argued that other than the bare allegation of fraud in the registration of the mark,
respondent failed to show the existence of any of the grounds for cancellation thereof under Section 151 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293, otherwise known as The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines
5. Bureau Director Estrellita Beltran-Abelardo rendered Decision No. 2003-02 finding that respondent has the
legal capacity to sue and that it is the owner of the internationally well-known trademarks; however, she
held that petitioners are not guilty of unfair competition
6. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration insisting that respondent has no legal capacity to sue, that no
ground for cancellation was duly proven, and that the action is barred by laches; while respondent moved
for partial reconsideration assailing the finding that petitioners are not guilty of unfair competition. Both,
however, were denied in Resolution No. 2004-18 dated October 28, 2004.
7. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition before the Court of Appeals which was dismissed for lack of merit. It
held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but a procedural remedy of
statutory origin, hence, its requirements must be strictly complied with. The appeal being filed out of time,
the December 22, 2003 Decision and the October 28, 2004 Orders of Bureau Director Beltran-Abelardo are
now final and executory
ISSUE/s:
1. WoN the CA erred in cancelling the claim of ownership over the name In-N-OUT of Sehwani Inc? – NO,
kasi…
RULING: SC affirmed the CA decision
RATIO:
1. How the SC arrived with their decision. Bold yung important.
2. Villamiel, concurring: dito mo lalagay yung summary.

007 Sehwani Inc v. In-N-Out Burgers Inc. (DAGUMAN)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

007 Sehwani Inc v. In-N-Out Burgers Inc. (DAGUMAN)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

007 Sehwani Inc v. In-N-Out Burgers Inc. (DAGUMAN)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The trial court gave full credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on the reason that they

007 Sehwani Inc v. In-N-Out Burgers Inc. (DAGUMAN)

PETITIONER: Sehwani Inc and/or Benita’s Frites

RULING: SC affirmed the CA decision

You might also like