G.R. No. L-53672, May 31, 1982
Facts:
The respondent New Olympian Rubber Products sought to
register the mark "BATA" for casual rubber shoe products, alleging it
had used the said mark since the 1970s. The petitioner, a Canadian corporation
opposed with its allegations that it owns and has not abandoned said trademark.
The petitioner has no license to do business in the Philippines and the
trademark has never been registered in the Philippines by any foreign entity.
Bata Industries does not sell footwear under the said trademark in the
Philippines nor does it have any licensing agreement with any local entity to
sell its product.
Evidence
show that earlier, even before the World War II, Bata shoes made by Gerbec and
Hrdina (Czech company) were already sold in the country. Some shoes made by the
petitioner may have been sold in the Philippines ntil 1948. On the other hand,
respondent spent money and effort to popularize the trademark "BATA"
since the 70's. Moreover, it also secures 3 copyright registrations for the
word "BATA". The Philippine Patent Office (PPO) dismissed the
opposition by the petitioner while the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed said
decision. However, a 2nd resolution by the CA affirmed the PPO decision.
Issue: Does the petitioner have the right to
protect its goodwill alleged to be threatened with the registration of the
mark?
NO.
Bata Industries has no Philippine goodwill that would be damaged by the
registration of the mark.
Any
slight goodwill obtained by the product before World War II was completely
abandoned and lost in the more than 35 years that passed since Manila's
liberation from Japan. The petitioner never used the trademark either before or
after the war. It is also not the successor-in-interest of Gerbec &
Hrdina and there there was no privity of interest between them, Furthermore,
the Czech trademark has long been abandoned in Czechoslovakia.
No comments:
Post a Comment