G.R. No. 115758 March 19, 2002
Elidad C. Kho, doing business under the name and style of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Summerville General Merchandising and Company, and Ang Tiam Chay, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Elidad C. Kho, doing business as KEC Cosmetics Laboratory, filed a complaint for injunction and damages against respondents Summerville General Merchandising and Company and Ang Tiam Chay. Petitioner claimed to be the registered owner of the copyrights for “Chin Chun Su” and “Oval Facial Cream Container/Case” and held patent rights for “Chin Chun Su & Device” and “Chin Chun Su” for medicated cream, which she purchased from the registered owner. She alleged that respondents advertised and sold cream products under the brand name “Chin Chun Su” in similar containers, misleading the public and causing a decline in her sales. The Regional Trial Court granted her application for a writ of preliminary injunction. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the RTC’s orders, ruling that petitioner’s registration of the trademark in the supplemental register did not confer the exclusive right to use it. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and filed motions to cite respondents in contempt for publishing advertisements about the appellate court’s decision. The Court of Appeals denied these motions. Meanwhile, the RTC rendered a decision on the main case, barring petitioner from using the trademark “Chin Chun Su” but recognizing her copyright over the oval-shaped container.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) failing to dismiss the petition for certiorari for alleged violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 (regarding forum shopping); (2) delaying the resolution of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration; and (3) failing to cite private respondents in contempt for their advertisements.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that:
1. The appellate court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the petition for certiorari. The respondents’ failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping initially was cured by their subsequent submission of it. Furthermore, the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction was improper because the petitioner’s right was not clear and unmistakable. Registration of a trademark in the supplemental register does not confer the same rights as registration in the principal register and does not provide a basis for exclusive ownership. A copyright protects literary and artistic works, not trademarks, and a patent protects inventions, not trade names. Therefore, the petitioner had no clear legal right to the trademark “Chin Chun Su” to justify the injunctive writ.
2. Any delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration did not render the judgment void. The petitioner contributed to the delay by filing successive motions. Non-observance of the period for deciding incidents does not invalidate the judgment.
3. The Court of Appeals correctly denied the motions for contempt. The advertisements complained of merely announced the promulgation of the appellate court’s decision in a plain manner. The decision nullifying the injunctive writ was immediately executory.