Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 483 views

    2 Pro-Line Sports Center v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Rap Santos
    1) Pro Line Sports Center filed a complaint against Universal for manufacturing fake Spalding balls. The NBI raided Universal and found 1,200 fake balls. 2) Pro Line and Questor, the owner of the Spalding trademark, filed a criminal complaint against Universal for unfair competition. The criminal complaint was eventually dismissed. 3) In response, Universal filed a civil case for damages against Pro Line and Questor. The court ruled that while Universal could have filed a separate civil case, res judicata applied since the civil issues were addressed in the criminal case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2 Pro-Line Sports Center v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Rap Santos
    483 views1 page
    1) Pro Line Sports Center filed a complaint against Universal for manufacturing fake Spalding balls. The NBI raided Universal and found 1,200 fake balls. 2) Pro Line and Questor, the owner of the Spalding trademark, filed a criminal complaint against Universal for unfair competition. The criminal complaint was eventually dismissed. 3) In response, Universal filed a civil case for damages against Pro Line and Questor. The court ruled that while Universal could have filed a separate civil case, res judicata applied since the civil issues were addressed in the criminal case.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Pro Line Sports Center filed a complaint against Universal for manufacturing fake Spalding balls. The NBI raided Universal and found 1,200 fake balls. 2) Pro Line and Questor, the owner of the Spalding trademark, filed a criminal complaint against Universal for unfair competition. The criminal complaint was eventually dismissed. 3) In response, Universal filed a civil case for damages against Pro Line and Questor. The court ruled that while Universal could have filed a separate civil case, res judicata applied since the civil issues were addressed in the criminal case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    483 views1 page

    2 Pro-Line Sports Center v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Rap Santos
    1) Pro Line Sports Center filed a complaint against Universal for manufacturing fake Spalding balls. The NBI raided Universal and found 1,200 fake balls. 2) Pro Line and Questor, the owner of the Spalding trademark, filed a criminal complaint against Universal for unfair competition. The criminal complaint was eventually dismissed. 3) In response, Universal filed a civil case for damages against Pro Line and Questor. The court ruled that while Universal could have filed a separate civil case, res judicata applied since the civil issues were addressed in the criminal case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Pro Line Sports Center, Inc. vs.

    CA
    281 SCRA 162 (1997)

    FACTS:
    By virtue of its merger with A.G. Spalding Bros., Inc., QUESTOR, a
    US-based corporation, became the owner of the tra
    demark ―spalding.

    Its exclusive distributor in the Philippines is Pro Line Sports Center, Inc. (Pro Line).
    Pro Line filed a complaint with the NBI regarding the alleged manufacturer of fake
    ―spalding balls by UNIVERSAL. When the NBI conducted a search on the premises
    of UNIVERSAL, some 1,200 basketballs and volleyballs marked ―spalding were
    found in the premises of UNIVERSAL. Three days after, on motion of the NBI, the
    court ordered to seal and padlock the instruments at UNIVERSAL‘s factory. Pro Line
    and QESTOR filed a criminal complaint for unfair competition against Monico
    Sehwani, the President of UNIVERSAL.

    The criminal complaint against Sehwani was eventually dismissed. Upon dismissal of
    the criminal case, UNIVERSAL and Sehwani filed a civil case for damages against
    Pro Line and QUESTOR for allegedly filing an unfounded suit.

    ISSUE :

    Whether or not the counterclaim should be sustained.

    HELD :

    Counterclaim for damages by the Pro-Line based on the illegal and unauthorized
    manufacture of "Spalding" balls certainly constitutes an independent cause of action
    which can be the subject of a separate complaint for damages against Universal.
    However, this separate civil action cannot anymore be pursued as it is already barred
    by res judicata, the judgment in the criminal case (against Universal) involving both
    the criminal and civil aspects of the case for unfair competition. To recall, petitioner
    Pro-Line, upon whose initiative the criminal action for unfair competition against
    respondent Universal was filed, did not institute a separate civil action for damages
    nor reserve its right to do so. Thus the civil aspect for damages was deemed
    instituted in the criminal case.

    No better manifestation of the intent of petitioner to recover damages in the criminal


    case can be expressed than their active participation in the prosecution of the civil
    aspect of the criminal case through the intervention of their private prosecutor.
    Obviously, such intervention could only be for the purpose of recovering damages or
    indemnity because the offended party is not entitled to represent the People of the
    Philippines in the prosecution of a public offense. A counterclaim partakes of the
    nature of a complaint and/or a cause of action against the plaintiffs. It is in itself a
    distinct and independent cause of action, so that when properly stated as such, the
    defendant becomes, in respect to the matter stated by him, an actor, and there are
    two simultaneous actions pending between the same parties, where each is at the
    same time both a plaintiff and defendant. A counterclaim stands on the same footing
    and is to be tested by the same rules, as if it were an independent action.

    You might also like