Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 361 views

    Yao Vs People

    Uploaded by

    StevensonYu
    This case involves a petition filed by Masagana Gas Corporation and its officers against Petron and Shell for trademark infringement. Private respondents Petron and Shell own the trademarks "GASUL" and "SHELLANE" respectively for their LPG products. NBI agents conducted surveillance of Masagana and found that Masagana was refilling and distributing LPG cylinders bearing the GASUL and SHELLANE trademarks without authorization. The court found that Masagana's unauthorized use of Petron and Shell's trademarks on LPG cylinders was likely to cause confusion and deception, and thus constituted trademark infringement under the law. The court upheld the search warrants issued against Masagana based on the evidence establishing probable cause of trademark

    Copyright:

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

    Yao Vs People

    Uploaded by

    StevensonYu
    361 views1 page
    This case involves a petition filed by Masagana Gas Corporation and its officers against Petron and Shell for trademark infringement. Private respondents Petron and Shell own the trademarks "GASUL" and "SHELLANE" respectively for their LPG products. NBI agents conducted surveillance of Masagana and found that Masagana was refilling and distributing LPG cylinders bearing the GASUL and SHELLANE trademarks without authorization. The court found that Masagana's unauthorized use of Petron and Shell's trademarks on LPG cylinders was likely to cause confusion and deception, and thus constituted trademark infringement under the law. The court upheld the search warrants issued against Masagana based on the evidence establishing probable cause of trademark

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Yao vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition filed by Masagana Gas Corporation and its officers against Petron and Shell for trademark infringement. Private respondents Petron and Shell own the trademarks "GASUL" and "SHELLANE" respectively for their LPG products. NBI agents conducted surveillance of Masagana and found that Masagana was refilling and distributing LPG cylinders bearing the GASUL and SHELLANE trademarks without authorization. The court found that Masagana's unauthorized use of Petron and Shell's trademarks on LPG cylinders was likely to cause confusion and deception, and thus constituted trademark infringement under the law. The court upheld the search warrants issued against Masagana based on the evidence establishing probable cause of trademark

    Copyright:

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

    Yao Vs People

    Uploaded by

    StevensonYu
    This case involves a petition filed by Masagana Gas Corporation and its officers against Petron and Shell for trademark infringement. Private respondents Petron and Shell own the trademarks "GASUL" and "SHELLANE" respectively for their LPG products. NBI agents conducted surveillance of Masagana and found that Masagana was refilling and distributing LPG cylinders bearing the GASUL and SHELLANE trademarks without authorization. The court found that Masagana's unauthorized use of Petron and Shell's trademarks on LPG cylinders was likely to cause confusion and deception, and thus constituted trademark infringement under the law. The court upheld the search warrants issued against Masagana based on the evidence establishing probable cause of trademark

    Copyright:

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

    WILLIAM C. YAO, et al vs.

    PEOPLE, PETRON and SHELL


    G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007

    Facts:
    Petitioners are incorporators and officers of MASAGANA GAS CORPORATION (MASAGANA),
    an entity engaged in the refilling, sale and distribution of LPG products. Private respondents
    Petron and Pilipinas Shell are two of the largest bulk suppliers and producers of LPG in the
    Philippines. Their LPG products are sold under the marks "GASUL" and "SHELLANE," respectively.
    They are authorized to allow refillers and distributors to refill, use, sell and distribute their
    respective LPG containers and products. NBI agent Oblanca filed applications for search warrant
    against petitioners and other occupants of MASAGANA compound, on the ground that petitioners
    are actually producing, selling, offering for sale and/or distributing LPG products using steel
    cylinders owned by, and bearing the tradenames, trademarks, and devices of Petron and
    Pilipinas Shell, without authority and in violation of the rights of the said entities.
    Presiding Judge of RTC found probable cause, hence, commanded the immediate search
    and seizure of the items. Petitioners filed with the RTC a Motion to quash Search Warrants
    alleging that the items are being used in the conduct of the lawful business of respondents and
    the same are not being used in refilling Shellane and Gasul LPGs. R
    CA upheld the RTCs decision and denied the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
    Issue: WON Petitioners are liable for Trademark Infringement
    Held: YES
    Ruling:
    Section 155 of Republic Act No. 8293 identifies the acts constituting trademark
    infringement. As can be gleaned in Section 155.1, mere unauthorized use of a container bearing
    a registered trademark in connection with the sale, distribution or advertising of goods or
    services which is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception among the buyers/consumers
    can be considered as trademark infringement.
    In Oblancas sworn affidavits, he stated that before conducting an investigation on the
    alleged illegal activities of Masagana, he reviewed the certificates of trademark registrations
    issued by the Philippine Intellectual Property Office in favor of Petron and Pilipinas Shell; that he
    confirmed from Petron and Pilipinas Shell that MASAGANA is not authorized to sell, use, refill or
    distribute Gasul and Shellane LPG cylinder containers; that he and Alajar monitored the activities
    of MASAGANA in its refilling plant station located within its compound at Governors Drive,
    Barangay Lapidario, trecemartires, Cavite City; that, using different names, they conducted two
    test-buys therein where they purchased LPG cylinders bearing the trademarks GASUL and
    SHELLANE; that the said GASUL and SHELLANE LPG cylinders were refilled in their presence by
    the Masagana employees; that while they were inside the Masagana compound, he noticed stock
    piles of multi-branded cylinders including GASUL and SHELLANE LPG cylinders; and that they
    observed delivery trucks loaded with GASUL and SHELLANE LPG cylinders coming in and out of
    the MASAGANA compound and making deliveries to various retail outlets.
    Extant from the foregoing testimonial, documentary and object evidence is
    that Oblanca and Alajar have personal knowledge of the fact that petitioners, through
    MASAGANA, have been using the LPG cylinders bearing the marks GASUL and SHELLANE without
    permission from Petron and Pilipinas Shell, a probable cause for trademark infringement.
    Both Oblanca and Alajar were clear and insistent that they were the very same persons who
    monitored the activities of MASAGANA; that they conducted test-buys thereon; and that in order
    to avoid suspicion, they used different names during the test-buys. They also personally
    witnessed the refilling of LPG cylinders bearing the marks GASUL and SHELLANE inside the
    MASAGANA refilling plant station and the deliveries of these refilled containers to some outlets
    using mini-trucks.
    The facts and circumstances of the case are sufficient to establish probable cause. It
    should be borne in mind that the determination of probable cause does not call for the
    application of the rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial
    on the merits. As the term implies, probable cause is concerned with probability, not absolute or
    even moral certainty. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the
    exacting calibrations of a judge after a full blown trial.

    You might also like