Outcome:
The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the rehabilitation court to convene the creditors for purposes of complying with the voting requirement under Section 64 of the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act (FRIA), partially granting the petition of petitioners, and reinstating the decision of the Regional Trial Court.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court granted the petition of Ginebra San Miguel, Inc. (GSMI), reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstating GSMI’s trademark application with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). It ruled that the word “GINEBRA” is considered a descriptive mark which may be registerable under the doctrine of secondary meaning due to long usage and it coming to be known by the consuming public as specifically and particularly designating the gin product of GSMI.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court denied the petition of Dela Cruz, et al. for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan, finding that the petitioners failed to prove any unlawful act on the part of respondent Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) and they failed to demonstrate the magnitude of the actual or threatened environmental damage as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court granted the petition of Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. (FILSCAP) to reverse and set aside the rulings denying its right to collect license fees and/or royalties over its member artists’ copyrighted works.
The Supreme Court ordered respondent Anrey, Inc. (Anrey) to pay the FILSCAP ₱10,000.00 as temperate damages for the unlicensed public performance of the copyrighted songs on FILSCAP’s repertoire and ₱50,000.00 as attorney’s fees, plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum from September 8, 2009 until June 30, 2013, and thereafter, 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of the Court’s judgment. Such amount shall be subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the date of finality of this judgment until fully satisfied.
Outcome: Question of law answered in the negative. The appeal was allowed with cost of RM40,000-00 to the appellant (the liquidator) subject to allocatur.
Outcome: The Federal Court found that there is no error in the finding of facts made by the learned judge where similarities ‘cannot be said to be substantial similarities that go to the root of the novel and the movie’. The Federal Court found that there was no justification for the Court of Appeal to ...