Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 63 views

    246 Corporation v. Daway (G.R. No. 157216) : June 9, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Marites regalia
    The case involved a complaint filed by Rolex and Rolex Centre Phil., owners of the Rolex trademark, against 246 Corporation for trademark infringement. 246 Corporation used the name "Rolex Music Lounge" for its entertainment business. While 246 Corporation argued its business was unrelated to Rolex's watch business, the court found that under Section 123.1(f) of the Intellectual Property Code, a junior user of a well-known trademark can be precluded from using it on unrelated goods if the use would indicate a connection and damage the trademark owner's interests. However, the court could not yet rule on whether Section 123.1(f) applied because key facts regarding the trademark's international fame and potential damage needed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    246 Corporation v. Daway (G.R. No. 157216) : June 9, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Marites regalia
    63 views2 pages
    The case involved a complaint filed by Rolex and Rolex Centre Phil., owners of the Rolex trademark, against 246 Corporation for trademark infringement. 246 Corporation used the name "Rolex Music Lounge" for its entertainment business. While 246 Corporation argued its business was unrelated to Rolex's watch business, the court found that under Section 123.1(f) of the Intellectual Property Code, a junior user of a well-known trademark can be precluded from using it on unrelated goods if the use would indicate a connection and damage the trademark owner's interests. However, the court could not yet rule on whether Section 123.1(f) applied because key facts regarding the trademark's international fame and potential damage needed

    Original Title

    246 Corporation v.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a complaint filed by Rolex and Rolex Centre Phil., owners of the Rolex trademark, against 246 Corporation for trademark infringement. 246 Corporation used the name "Rolex Music Lounge" for its entertainment business. While 246 Corporation argued its business was unrelated to Rolex's watch business, the court found that under Section 123.1(f) of the Intellectual Property Code, a junior user of a well-known trademark can be precluded from using it on unrelated goods if the use would indicate a connection and damage the trademark owner's interests. However, the court could not yet rule on whether Section 123.1(f) applied because key facts regarding the trademark's international fame and potential damage needed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    63 views2 pages

    246 Corporation v. Daway (G.R. No. 157216) : June 9, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Marites regalia
    The case involved a complaint filed by Rolex and Rolex Centre Phil., owners of the Rolex trademark, against 246 Corporation for trademark infringement. 246 Corporation used the name "Rolex Music Lounge" for its entertainment business. While 246 Corporation argued its business was unrelated to Rolex's watch business, the court found that under Section 123.1(f) of the Intellectual Property Code, a junior user of a well-known trademark can be precluded from using it on unrelated goods if the use would indicate a connection and damage the trademark owner's interests. However, the court could not yet rule on whether Section 123.1(f) applied because key facts regarding the trademark's international fame and potential damage needed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    246 Corporation v. Daway (G.R.

    No. 157216)
    Date: June 9, 2016

    Facts:

    Respondents Montres Rolex and Rolex Centre Phil., owners/proprietors of Rolex and
    Crown Device, filed a complaint for trademark infringement alleging petitioner
    adopted and used without authority the mark ‘Rolex’ in its business name ‘Rolex
    Music Lounge.’ Petitioner argued that there is no trademark infringement since no
    confusion would arise by the use of ‘Rolex’ considering that its entertainment
    business is totally unrelated to respondent’s business or products such as watches,
    clocks, etc.

    Issue:

    Whether or not likelihood of confusion would arise from the use of identical marks
    over unrelated goods/business.

    Ruling: YES.

    Under the old Trademark Law where the goods for which the identical marks are used
    are unrelated, there can be no likelihood of confusion and there is therefore no
    infringement in the use by the junior user of the registered mark on the entirely
    different goods. This ruling, however, has been to some extent, modified by Section
    123.1(f) of the Intellectual Property Code.

    A junior user of a well-known mark on goods or services which are not similar to the
    goods or services, and are therefore unrelated, to those specified in the certificate of
    registration of the well-known mark is precluded from using the same on the entirely
    unrelated goods or services, subject to the following requisites, to wit:

    1. The mark is well-known internationally and in the Philippines.

    2. The use of the well-known mark on the entirely unrelated goods or services
    would indicate a connection between such unrelated goods or services and those
    goods or services specified in the certificate of registration in the well known
    mark. This requirement refers to the likelihood of confusion of origin or business
    or some business connection or relationship between the registrant and the user
    of the mark.

    3. The interests of the owner of the well-known mark are likely to be damaged. For
    instance, if the registrant will be precluded from expanding its business to those
    unrelated good or services, or if the interests of the registrant of the well-known
    mark will be damaged because of the inferior quality of the good or services of
    the user.
    *Section 123.1(f) is clearly in point because the Music Lounge of petitioner is
    entirely unrelated to respondents’ business involving watches, clocks, bracelets,
    etc. However, the Court cannot yet resolve the merits of the present controversy
    considering that the requisites for the application of Section 123.1(f), which
    constitute the kernel issue at bar, clearly require determination facts of which
    need to be resolved at the trial court.

    You might also like