Shangri-La International Hotel Management, Ltd.

(SLIHM)
Vs. Developers Group of Companies, Inc. (DGCI)
NATURE:
petition for review on certiorari of the
resolution of the Court of Appeals

decision

&

FACTS:
petitioners (Shangri-La) assail to set & seek to set aside
the decision of the Court of Appeals & its resolution w/c
affirmed w/ modification an earlier decision of the RTC of
QC, an action for infringement & damages threat
commenced by respondent (DCGI) against them.
core of this controversy: Shangri-La mark & S logo.
Respondent DGCI claims ownership of said mark & logo in
the Philippines.
Bureau of Patents, Trademarks & Technology Transfer
(BPTTT) issued DGCI a certificate of registration (may 31,
2983) and since then, DGCI started using the Shangri-La
& S in its restaurant business.
on the other hand, Kuok family (owns & operates a chain
of hotels & hotel-related transactions since 1969) adopted
the name Shangri-La as part of corporate names of all
companies under the Kuok Grp. Of Companies as far back
as 1962. Name Shangri-La has been used in all their
hotels & hotel-related establishments worldwide.
And for centralization purposes= they use Shangri-La &
S logo in their hotels in places such as Singapore and
Hong Kong. They also incorporated it in the Phils. In the
beginning of 1987 in Edsa Shangri-La (Mandaluyong) &
Makati Shangri-La (Makati)

Ramon Syhunliong as DGCIs witness (businessman;

named his restaurant business Shangri-la)
DGCI filed a complaint for Infringement & Damages, lower
courts judgment was in favor of the respondent (DGCI)
1. Kuok Groups bulk use of the tradename was
abroad, not in the Phils (until 1987)
2. The Paris Convention must yield to a municipal
law
ISSUES:
1. Whether
certification
against
forum-shopping
submitted on the behalf of the petitioners is efficient
(NOT RELEVANT TO CONSTI TOPIC)
2. Whether the issue posed by petitioners are purely
factual in nature hence improper for resolution in the
instant petition for review on certiorati
DECISION:
the instant petition is GRANTED
RATIO:
The new Intellectual Property Code (IPC), R.A. No. 8293,
undoubtedly shows the firm resolve of the Philippines to
observe & follow the Paris Convention by incorporating the
relevant portions of the Convention such that persons who
may question a mark (that is, oppose registration, petition
for the cancellation thereof, sue for unfair competition)
include persons whose internationally well-known mark,
whether or not registered, is identical with or confusingly
similar to or constitutes a translation of a mark that is
sought to be registered or is actually registered.
Paris Convention mandates that protection should be
afforded to internationally known marks as signatory to the

Paris Convention w/o regard as to whether the foreign

corporation registered, licensed or doing business in the
Phils.
our municipal law on trademarks regarding the
requirement of actual use in the Phils must subordinate a
international agreement

the fact that international law has been made part of the
law of the land does not any means imply the primacy of
international law over national law in the municipal sphere.
Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most
countries, rules of international law are given equal footage
petitioners separate personalities
from their mother
corporation be an obstacle in the enforcement of their rights
as part of Kuok Grp of Companies