Case vs. couple in facial cream dispute must proceed

AFTER TWO  decades, the case against couple Elidad and Violeta Kho will proceed after they were accused of selling alleged knockoffs of Chin Chun Su, a medicated facial cream.

The Supreme Court (SC) denied the Khos’ petition in an 11-page decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando and published recently.

The SC said the Court of Appeals (CA) did not err in rendering its decision on Oct. 1, 2013, directing the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46 to reinstate the information for unfair competition against the couple.

The Khos were charged with unfair competition in 2000 by Summerville General Merchandising & Co., which claimed it is the exclusive and authorized importer, repacker, and distributor of Chin Chun Su products manufactured by Shun Yi factory of Taiwan that gave it the authority to register its trade name Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream in the Philippines.

Summerville accused the Khos’ KEC Cosmetics Laboratory of obtaining copyrights through misrepresentation and falsification.

The case has since gone back and forth among the lower courts, Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as the CA and SC.

“The similarities far outweigh the differences. The general appearance of the product is confusingly similar to Summerville's. Verily, the acts complained of against petitioners constituted the offense of unfair competition and probable cause exists to hold them for trial,” the SC said.

“Unfair competition is always a question of fact. In line with this, we find that with the existence of probable cause on hand, it would serve the ends of justice if the parties would be able to present their respective claims and defenses in a full-blown trial. For now, it is sufficient that probable cause exists to hold petitioners for trial for the unfair competition case filed against them. Thus, the appellate court did not err when it directed the trial court to reinstate the information and proceed with the criminal case before it,” the SC further said.

The case was originally filed on May 2000 before the Manila RTC, which subsequently ruled for the filing of the case.

After several appeals and petitions for review that included the DOJ issuing a resolution dismissing the complaint on Sept. 2001 and granting the motion for reconsideration of Summerville a year later, the Manila RTC Branch 46 cleared the Khos in 2010 ahead of a full blown trial and said that it “finds no probable cause to hold the accused for trial”.

Summerville elevated the case once more to the CA, which in 2013 set aside the ruling of the Manila RTC. The Khos then questioned the CA decision before the SC.