104.
WOLVERINE PARTIES INVOLVED
WORLDWIDE INC  Pet. Wolverine Worldwide : foreign corporation organized
v CA and LOLITO and existing under the law of US and the registrant of the
CRUZ trademark Hush Puppies and Dog Device
 Resp. Lolito Cruz – Filipino citizen, to whom trademarks
Hush Puppies and Dog Device have been issued to
PETITIONER FILED FOR THE CANCELLATION OF
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKS
 Petitioner brought a petition before the Philippine Patent
Office for the cancellation of Certificate of Registration of the
trademark of the trademark Hush Puppies and Dog Device
issued to Resp. Cruz
 It alleged that the goods sold by them and Cruz belong to the
same class such that Cruz’ use of the same trademark in the
Phil constitutes an act of unfair competition.
RESPONDENT MOVED TO DISMISS THE PETITION ON THE
GROUND OF RES JUDICATA
 It alleged that in 1973, or more than 10 yrs before this instant
petition, Wolverine Worldwide filed 2 petitions for
cancellation and was a party to an interference proceeding, all
of which involved the trademark Hush Puppies and Dog
Device
 The Director of Patents then dismissed the petitions for
cancellation of registration; CA affirmed the decision
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
 The petition is not barred by res judicata because while the
former petitions were filed under Republic Act 166
(Trademark Law), the present petition was brought pursuant
to the memorandum of Minister Roberto, which expressly
sanctions the cancellation of registration of a trademark
granted prior to the same memorandum
ISSUE: Whether or not the present petition for cancellation is barred
by res judicata in the light of the prior final and executory decision of
Director of Patents
Yes, the present petition for cancellation is barred by res judicata
The fundamental principle of res judicata applies to all cases and proceedings
in whatever form they may be. Thus, final decisions, orders, and resolutions, of
the Director of Patents are clothed with a judicial character as they are, in fact,
reviewable by the Court of Appeals and by this Court.
 In the case at bar, the CA decision, affirming that of the Director of
Patents, in the cancellation cases filed in 1973, was never appealed to
this Court.
 Having been final and executory, it bars the prosecution of the present
action under res judicata.
Petitioner’s argument : Res judicata does not apply because when the Director
of Patents decided the prior case in 1977, Executive Order No. 913 dated
October 7, 1983 and the resulting memorandum of Minister Roberto Ongpin
dated October 25, 1983 had not yet been issued.
 The subject memorandum never amended, nor was it meant to amend,
the Trademark Law. It did not indicate a new policy with respect to
the registration in the Philippines of world-famous trademarks.
 The memorandum has no room for application where the oppositor
availed of the same remedy to cancel the registration of the subject
trademark but did not prevail.
The repeated filing of petitions for cancellation founded on substantially the
same ground provided in Sec 17 of the Trademark Law is not permissible.
 The present petition for cancellation raises basically the same issue of
ownership of the trademark HUSH PUPPIES, which issue was
already discussed and settled in the decision of Director of Patents
Petition for review is denied.