Batistis vs People.docx

Case Title: BATISTIS vs. PEOPLE

Petitioner’s claims:

Petitioner contends that the Trial Court erred in convicting him of the violation of Section 155 (Infringement of Trademark) of the Intellectual Property Law on the basis of the self-serving affidavits and testimonies of the police officers who c onducted the raid on his house. Respondent’s claims:

Respondent claims that Petitioner is guilty of Infringement of Trademark in actively engaging in the manufacture, sale and distribution of counterfeit Fundador brandy products which would likely induce the public to believe that the said fake Fundador Brandy reproduced and/or sold are the real Fundador Brandy produced or distributed by the Allied Domecq Spirits and Wines Limited, U.K. and Allied Domecq Philippines, Inc. to the damage and prejudice o f the latter and the public. Issue:

Whether or not the Trial Court erred in ruling that the Petitioner is guilty of violation of Sections 155 of the Intellectual Property Law. Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the t he petition has no merit based on the following reasons: 1. The appeal is improper considering that his petition for review on certiorari should raise only the errors committed by the CA as the appellate court, not the errors of the RTC. Also, the petition requires a re-appreciation of facts and such is not allowed as the Court is not a trier of  facts and the findings of the CA is conclusive unless they were mistaken, absurd, speculative, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings reached by the court of origin. 2. Assuming that the appeal is permissible, the RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the evidence against the accused and correctly applied the pertinent law to their findings of fact. It has been found out that the seized Fundador brandy, when compared with the genuine product, revealed several characteristics of counterfeiting. There is no question, therefore, that Batistis exerted effort to make the counterfeit products look genuine to deceive the unwary public into regarding the products as genuine.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Case Title: COFFEE PARTNERS, INC. vs. SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE & ROASTERY, INC.

Petitioner’s claims: