G.R. No. 202900 , February 17, 2021
SAO PAULO ALPARGATAS S.A., PETITIONER, VS. KENTEX MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND ONG KING GUAN, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Sao Paulo Alpargatas S.A. (SPASA) is the owner and manufacturer of the “Havaianas” footwear brand and the registered owner of its related marks and logos in the Philippines. Respondents Kentex Manufacturing Corporation and its president, Ong King Guan, manufacture slippers under the brand name “Havana.” Upon SPASA’s complaint, the NBI conducted an investigation and found that Kentex’s “Havana” products closely resembled SPASA’s “Havaianas” sandals, bearing similar patterns and logos. Based on the application and supporting affidavits of NBI Agent Terrence Agustin, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 7, issued Search Warrant Nos. 10-16378 to 81 against the respondents for violation of Republic Act No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code) on trademark infringement and unfair competition. The implementation of the warrants led to the seizure of respondents’ products. Respondents filed a Motion to Quash the search warrants and to return the seized goods, presenting a Certificate of Copyright Registration for “Havana Footwear,” a pending Trademark Application for “Havana Sandals (Stylized),” and Applications for Industrial Design for slippers and soles. SPASA opposed the motion, presenting its Certificates of Registration for the “Havaianas” marks and logos, and filed cancellation proceedings against respondents’ industrial design registrations and a complaint for trademark infringement before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). The RTC denied the Motion to Quash, finding probable cause based on the confusing similarity between the products. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ordering the return of the seized properties, holding that respondents’ industrial design registrations conferred a legitimate right pending the resolution of inter partes proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the issuance of the subject search warrants is valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals Decision, and reinstated the Orders of the RTC denying the Motion to Quash the search warrants. The Court held that the search warrants were validly issued. The issuing judge correctly found probable cause based on the applicant’s personal knowledge and the detailed examination of the evidence presented during the ex-parte hearing, including physical samples and sworn affidavits showing the confusing similarity between “Havana” and “Havaianas” products, which constituted probable cause for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Court ruled that respondents’ subsequent presentation of a copyright certificate and industrial design applications did not negate the existence of probable cause at the time of the warrant’s issuance. A copyright registration for a work of art is distinct from a trademark registration, and the pending applications for industrial design and trademark did not confer absolute rights, especially against the prior and registered trademarks of SPASA. The validity of a search warrant is determined based on the facts presented and the finding of probable cause at the time of its issuance, not by defenses or claims raised subsequently in a motion to quash. The items seized were the very articles alleged to be infringing, making them the proper objects of the search and seizure.