REPUBLIC GAS CORPORATION, ARNEL U. TY, MARI ANTONETTEN. TY, ORLANDO REYES, FERRER SUAZO and ALVIN U. TY,petitioners, vs. PETRON CORPORATION, PILIPINAS SHELLPETROLEUM CORPORATION, and SHELL INTERNATIONALPETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED, respondents.Petitioner: Regasco entity duly licensed to engage in, conduct and carry on, the business of refilling, buying, selling, distributing and marketing at wholesale and retail of Liquefied Petroleum Gas ("LPG"). petitioners filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari after CA denied their MOR when CA reversed the Resolution of Sec. of DOJ affirming the dismissal of the complaint against the petitioners

Respondents: ("Petron" for brevity) and Pilipinas ShellPetroleum Corporation ("Shell" for brevity) are two of the largest bulksuppliers and producers of LPG in the Philippines. Petron is the registeredowner in the Philippines of the trademarks GASUL and GASUL cylinders usedfor its LPG products. It is the sole entity in the Philippines authorized to allowrefillers and distributors to refill, use, sell, and distribute GASUL LPGcontainers, products and its trademarks. Pilipinas Shell, on the other hand, isthe authorized user in the Philippines of the tradename, trademarks,symbols or designs of its principal, Shell International Petroleum CompanyLimited, including the marks SHELLANE and SHELL device in connection withthe production, sale and distribution of SHELLANE LPGs. It is the onlycorporation in the Philippines authorized to allow refillers and distributors torefill, use, sell and distribute SHELLANE LPG containers and products.The surveillance revealed that REGASCO LPGRefilling Plant in Malabon was engaged in the refilling and sale of LPGcylinders bearing the registered marks of the petitioners without authorityfrom the latter.Issue: whether probable cause exists to hold petitioners liable for the crimes of trademarkinfringement and unfair competition as defined and penalized under Sections 155and 168, in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293.

Ruling: Section 155. Remedies; Infringement. Any person who shall,without the consent of the owner of the registered mark:155.1 Use in commerce any reproduction,counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of a registeredmark of the same container or a dominant featurethereof in connection with the sale, offering for sale,distribution, advertising of any goods or servicesincluding other preparatory steps necessary to carryout the sale of any goods or services on or inconnection with which such use is likely to causeconfusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or

Here, petitioners have actually committed trademark infringement when theyrefilled, without the respondents' consent, the LPG containers bearing the registeredmarks of the respondents. As noted by respondents, petitioners' acts will inevitablyconfuse the consuming public, since they have no way of knowing that the gascontained in the LPG tanks bearing respondents' marks is in reality not the latter'sLPG product after the same had been illegally refilled. The public will then be led tobelieve that petitioners are authorized refillers and distributors of respondents' LPGproducts, considering that they are accepting empty containers of respondents andrefilling them for resale. In the present case, respondents pertinently observed that by refilling and sellingLPG cylinders bearing their registered marks, petitioners are selling goods by givingthem the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer. the CA correctly pointed out that there is a showing that theconsumers may be misled into believing that the LPGs contained in the cylindersbearing the marks "GASUL" and "SHELLANE" are those goods or products of thepetitioners when, in fact, they are not. Obviously, the mere use of those LPGcylinders bearing the trademarks "GASUL" and "SHELLANE" will give the LPGs soldby REGASCO the general appearance of the products of the petitioners.

SONIC STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., complainant , vs. ATTY.NONNATUS P. CHUA, respondent .

Petitioner: Complainant is corporation doing business as a manufacturer and distributor ofzinc and aluminum-zinc coated metal sheets known in the market as Superzinc andSuperlume.

Respondent: STEELCORP is the exclusive licensee of and manufacturer inthe Philippines of "GALVALUME" metal sheet products, which arecoated with aluminum-zinc alloy, produced by using the technicalinformation and the patent on Hot Dip Coating of Ferrous Strandspetitioner's SUPERLUME metal sheet products, theprocess by which they are manufactured and produced certainlyinvolves an assembly line that substantially conforms with thetechnical information and registered patent licensed toSTEELCORP,For his part, respondent counters that he never made an allegation or reservationthat STEELCORP owned Philippine Patent No. 16269. He asserts that he merelyreserved the right to present the trademark license exclusively licensed toSTEELCORP by BIEC International, Inc. which is composed of the technicalinformation and the patent used to produce GALVALUME metal sheet products, thesame technology being utilized by complainant without authority from STEELCORP.Respondent further avers that the Complaint-Affidavit filed before the Departmentof Justice did not categorically claim that STEELCORP is the owner of the patent, butsimply that STEELCORP is the exclusive licensee of the process by whichGALVALUME is produced

ISSUE: WON Atty. Chua violated his duties as a lawyer toavoid dishonest and deceitful conduct and and to act with candor,fairness and good faith claimed or made to appear thatSTEELCORP was the licensee of the technical information and the patent on Hot DipCoating of Ferrous Strands or Philippine Patent No. 16269.

HELD: Yes. an extensiveinvestigation made by the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline showed thatSTEELCORP only has rights as a licensee of the technical information and not therights as a licensee of the patent, respondent's words and crafted explanation, he claimed thatSTEELCORP had rights as a licensee of the process, consisting of acombination of the Technical Information and the Patent. Considering,however, that STEELCORP's rights as a licensee of the process isseverable into (a) rights as licensee of the technical information and (b)rights as a licensee of Patent No. 16269, respondent was less than candidin asserting that STEELCORP had rights to the entire process during therelevant periodsThe expiration of the patent effectively negated and renderedirrelevant respondent's defense of subsistence of the contract betweenSTEELCORP and BIEC International, Inc. during the filing of the applicationfor search warrant and filing of respondent's affidavit before theDepartment of Justice. There is basis, therefore, to the claim thatrespondent has not been "candid enough" in his actuations.

CHESTER UYCO, WINSTON UYCHIYONG, and CHERRY C. UYCOONG,petitioners, vs. VICENTE LO, respondent .

Petitioner: they are the officers of Wintrade whichowns the subject trademarks and their variants. They alleged that Gasirel, not Lo, was the real party-in-interest. Theyallegedly derived their authority to use the marks from Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugalthrough Wonder, their predecessor-in-interest. Moreover, PBMC had already ceasedto be a corporation and, thus, the licensing agreement between PBMC and Lo couldnot be given effect, particularly because the agreement was not notarizedLo failed to sufficiently prove that the burners bought fromNational Hardware were those that they manufactured. But at the same time, theyalso argued that the marks "Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" are merelydescriptive and refer to the source of the design and the history of manufacture.Respondent: Respondent Vicente Lo andPhilippine Burners Manufacturing Corporation (PBMC) filed a complaint against theofficers of Wintrade Industrial Sales Corporation (Wintrade) , including petitionersChester Uyco, Winston Uychiyong and Cherry Uyco-Ong, and of National Hardware,including Mario Sy Chua, for violation of Section 169.1, in relation to Section 170, ofRA 8293.Lo claimed that as the assignee for the trademarks, hehad not authorized Wintrade to use these marks, nor had Casa Hipolito S.A.Portugal. The kerosene burners manufactured by Wintrade have caused confusion,mistake and deception on the part of the buying public. Lo stated that the real andgenuine burners are those manufactured by its agent, PBMC

ISSUE: WON CA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the ruling of DOJ

Held: No. They allege thatthe words "Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" refer to the origin of thedesign and not to the origin of the goods. The admission in the petitioners' Joint Affidavit is not in any way hypothetical, asthey would have us believe. They narrate incidents that have happened. They referto Wintrade's former association with Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal; to their decisionto produce the burners in the Philippines; to their use of the disputed marks; and totheir justification for their use.Moreimportantly, the products that Wintrade sold were admittedly produced in thePhilippines, with no authority from Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal. The law ontrademarks and trade names precisely precludes a person from profiting from thebusiness reputation built by another and from deceiving the public as to the originsof products. These facts support the consistent findings of the State Prosecutor, theDOJ and the CA that probable cause exists to charge the petitioners with falsedesignation of origin.The argument that the words "Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" refer tothe origin of the design and not to the origin of the goods does not negate thefinding of probable cause; at the same time, it is an argument that the petitionersare not barred by this Resolution from raising as a defense during the hearing of thecase.