Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 110 views

    Shangrila Vs DGCI

    Uploaded by

    Northern Summer
    1) Shangri-La Hotels has used the "S" logo since 1962 for its hotels but did not register it in the Philippines. In 1983, Developers Group of Companies (DGCI) registered the same "S" logo in the Philippines. 2) Shangri-La filed a petition to cancel DGCI's registration, arguing it had prior use and DGCI did not use the logo commercially. DGCI counter-argued factual issues needed resolution and the logo was only a corporate name for Shangri-La. 3) Both the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of DGCI, finding that under Philippine law, ownership requires actual commercial use

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Shangrila Vs DGCI

    Uploaded by

    Northern Summer
    110 views1 page
    1) Shangri-La Hotels has used the "S" logo since 1962 for its hotels but did not register it in the Philippines. In 1983, Developers Group of Companies (DGCI) registered the same "S" logo in the Philippines. 2) Shangri-La filed a petition to cancel DGCI's registration, arguing it had prior use and DGCI did not use the logo commercially. DGCI counter-argued factual issues needed resolution and the logo was only a corporate name for Shangri-La. 3) Both the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of DGCI, finding that under Philippine law, ownership requires actual commercial use

    Original Title

    Shangrila vs DGCI.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Shangri-La Hotels has used the "S" logo since 1962 for its hotels but did not register it in the Philippines. In 1983, Developers Group of Companies (DGCI) registered the same "S" logo in the Philippines. 2) Shangri-La filed a petition to cancel DGCI's registration, arguing it had prior use and DGCI did not use the logo commercially. DGCI counter-argued factual issues needed resolution and the logo was only a corporate name for Shangri-La. 3) Both the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of DGCI, finding that under Philippine law, ownership requires actual commercial use

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    110 views1 page

    Shangrila Vs DGCI

    Uploaded by

    Northern Summer
    1) Shangri-La Hotels has used the "S" logo since 1962 for its hotels but did not register it in the Philippines. In 1983, Developers Group of Companies (DGCI) registered the same "S" logo in the Philippines. 2) Shangri-La filed a petition to cancel DGCI's registration, arguing it had prior use and DGCI did not use the logo commercially. DGCI counter-argued factual issues needed resolution and the logo was only a corporate name for Shangri-La. 3) Both the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of DGCI, finding that under Philippine law, ownership requires actual commercial use

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Shangri-La vs Developers Group of

    Companies
    CA: favored DGCI.
    a. kuok group does not have proof of
    actual use in the commerce in the
    Philippines.
    b. Respondent, DGCI has the right to
    FACTS:
    the logo because of its prior use in the
    Since 1969, the Kuok family owns and operates Philippines
    hotels, it adopted the name Shangri-la as part of
    Shangri-la moved for MR
    the corporate name. To centralize the operations of
    all Shangri-la, the board decided to hire a Issue
    Singaporean artist to design the logo of Shangri-la
    WON DGCI had the right over the registration of
    hotels.
    the mark and logo without prior actual commercial
    use?
    On the other hand, on 1983, the DGCI, respondent Held
    filed an application for registration over the “S”
    No, registration is not a mode of acquiring
    logo.
    ownership.
    Section 2 of RA 166 sets out how ownership in
    Shangri-la, upon learning of such application, filed trademark can be acquired:
    a petition for cancellation of the registration of
    one must be the owner thereof and must have
    DGCI on the ground that it was fraudulently
    actually used the mark in the commerce in
    obtained.
    Philippines for 2 months prior to the application
    for registration
    Arguments of Shangri-la:
    a. Shangrila and its related companies had been On the other hand, section 2-a provides:
    using the “S” logo since 1962. In this regard they
    Actual use in commerce is also a test of
    are protected by the Paris Convention for the
    ownership….that the mark must not have been
    Protection of Industrial Property.
    appropriated by another.
    b. DGCI had nor right to file because it did not have
    prior actual commercial use.
    By the provision of RA 166, one may be the owner
    of the mark due to actual use thereof but not yet
    Counter-argument of DGCI: have the right to register such ownership here due to
    failure to use it within the Philippines for two
    a. The first argument is a question of fact to be
    months.
    resolve by the RTC and CA.
    b. The “S” logo used by Shangri-la is a mere
    corporate name instead of using them as trademark Hence, Shangri-la has a better right over the “S”
    or service mark logo.
    RTC: in favor of DGCI
    Petitioner appealed to the CA

    You might also like