Puma Sportschuhfabriken Rudolf Dassler, K.G. vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court

No. L-75067. February 26, 1988

DOCTRINE

A foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines needs no license to site before Philippine
courts for infringement of trademark and unfair competition.

FACTS
1. Petitioner, a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of
Germany and the manufacturer and producer of "PUMA PRODUCTS," filed a complaint for infringement
of patent or trademark with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the
private respondent before the Regional Trial Court of Makati.

2. Prior to the filing of the said civil suit, three cases were pending before the Philippine Patent Office
against the Private respondent MIL-ORO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION. MIL-ORO wants to
register trademark for 'PUMA and DEVICE'.

3. Private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss before the RTC Makati on the grounds of litis pendentia
and that petitioner has no legal capacity to sue.

4. RTC denied the MTD. On appeal, CA reverse RTC and dismissed the case.

5. CA said that Petitioner has no capacity to sue because there is no allegation that there is reciprocity in
the complaint.

ISSUE: WON CA is correct in finding that the case should be dismissed by reason of litis pendentia and no
legal capacity to sue.

HELD – NO.

Petitioner has capacity to sue

1. The reciprocity is not needed to be alleged between Ph. and Ger. in the complaint.
2. Such reciprocity arrangement is embodied in and supplied by the Union Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention) to which both the Philippines and Federal Republic
of Germany are signatories and that since the Paris Convention is a treaty which, pursuant to our
Constitution, forms part of the law of the land.
3. The object of the Convention is to accord a national of a member nation extensive protection 'against
infringement and other types of unfair competition'.

No Litis Pendentia

1. Anent the issue of lis pendens as a ground for a motion to dismiss, the petitioner submits that the relief
prayed for in its civil action is different from the relief sought in the Inter Partes cases.
2. The other case is not a pending court action. PPO is not a court.