This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-06-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In Emerald Garment Mfg. Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[30] the Court reiterated its rulings in Sterling Products International, Inc. v. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft,[31] Kabushi Kaisha Isetan v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[32] and Philip Morris v. Court of Appeals and Fortune Tobacco Corporation[33] on the importance of actual commercial use of a trademark in the Philippines notwithstanding the Paris Convention: The provisions of the 1965 Paris Convention ... relied upon by private respondent and Sec. 21-A of the Trademark Law were sufficiently expounded upon and qualified in the recent case of Philip Morris, Inc., et. al. vs. Court of Appeals: xxx xxx xxx | |||||
|
2006-03-31 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Albeit the Kuok Group used the mark and logo since 1962, the evidence presented shows that the bulk use of the tradename was abroad and not in the Philippines (until 1987). Since the Kuok Group does not have proof of actual use in commerce in the Philippines (in accordance with Section 2 of R.A. No. 166), it cannot claim ownership of the mark and logo in accordance with the holding in Kabushi Kaisha Isetan v. IAC[8], as reiterated in Philip Morris, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[9] On the other hand, respondent has a right to the mark and logo by virtue of its prior use in the Philippines and the issuance of Certificate of Registration No. 31904. The use of the mark or logo in commerce through the bookings made by travel agencies is unavailing since the Kuok Group did not establish any branch or regional office in the Philippines. As it were, the Kuok Group was not engaged in commerce in the Philippines inasmuch as the bookings were made through travel agents not owned, controlled or managed by the Kuok Group. While the Paris Convention protects internationally known marks, R.A. No. 166 still requires use in commerce in the Philippines. Accordingly, and on the premise that international agreements, such as Paris Convention, must yield to a municipal law, the question on the exclusive right over the mark and logo would still depend on actual use in commerce in the Philippines. | |||||