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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 102 views

    Ecole de Cuisine Manille, Inc. v. Renaud Cointreau - Cie

    Uploaded by

    Darlene Ganub
    This case involved a dispute over the trademark "LE CORDON BLEU" between Ecole De Cuisine Manille and Renaud Cointreau & Cie. Ecole filed an opposition to Cointreau's application to register the mark, claiming it had been using it since 1948. Cointreau argued it was the true owner as Le Cordon Bleu was established in Paris in 1895 and Ecole's director had studied there. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cointreau, stating that as both France and the Philippines are parties to the Paris Convention, foreign marks like Cointreau's are protected even without local registration. The Court also noted Ecole was aware of Co

    Copyright:

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

    Ecole de Cuisine Manille, Inc. v. Renaud Cointreau - Cie

    Uploaded by

    Darlene Ganub
    102 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over the trademark "LE CORDON BLEU" between Ecole De Cuisine Manille and Renaud Cointreau & Cie. Ecole filed an opposition to Cointreau's application to register the mark, claiming it had been using it since 1948. Cointreau argued it was the true owner as Le Cordon Bleu was established in Paris in 1895 and Ecole's director had studied there. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cointreau, stating that as both France and the Philippines are parties to the Paris Convention, foreign marks like Cointreau's are protected even without local registration. The Court also noted Ecole was aware of Co

    Original Description:

    LIP

    Original Title

    Ecole de Cuisine Manille, Inc. v. Renaud Cointreau _ Cie

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over the trademark "LE CORDON BLEU" between Ecole De Cuisine Manille and Renaud Cointreau & Cie. Ecole filed an opposition to Cointreau's application to register the mark, claiming it had been using it since 1948. Cointreau argued it was the true owner as Le Cordon Bleu was established in Paris in 1895 and Ecole's director had studied there. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cointreau, stating that as both France and the Philippines are parties to the Paris Convention, foreign marks like Cointreau's are protected even without local registration. The Court also noted Ecole was aware of Co

    Copyright:

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

    Ecole de Cuisine Manille, Inc. v. Renaud Cointreau - Cie

    Uploaded by

    Darlene Ganub
    This case involved a dispute over the trademark "LE CORDON BLEU" between Ecole De Cuisine Manille and Renaud Cointreau & Cie. Ecole filed an opposition to Cointreau's application to register the mark, claiming it had been using it since 1948. Cointreau argued it was the true owner as Le Cordon Bleu was established in Paris in 1895 and Ecole's director had studied there. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cointreau, stating that as both France and the Philippines are parties to the Paris Convention, foreign marks like Cointreau's are protected even without local registration. The Court also noted Ecole was aware of Co

    Copyright:

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

    COMMREV MAMA Z CASES Doctrine

    Title: Ecole De Cuisine Manille (Cordon Bleu of GR No. 185830


    the Philippines), Inc. vs. Renaud Cointreau & Cie,
    G.R. No. 185830, June 5, 2013 Date: June 5, 2013

    Ponente: PERLAS-BERNABE, J

    Petitioner: ECOLE DE CUISINE MANILLE Defendant: RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE


    (CORDON BLEU OF THE PHILIPPINES), and LE CORDON BLEU INT'L., B.V.
    INC.

    Doctrines: Foreign marks which are not registered are still accorded protection against
    infringement and/or unfair competition. Thus, under Philippine law, a trade name of a
    national of a State that is a party to the Paris Convention, whether or not the trade name
    forms part of a trademark, is protected without the obligation of filing or registration.

    FACTS

    Cointreau, a partnership registered under the laws of France, filed before the DTI a trademark
    application for the mark “LE CORDON BLEU & DEVICE.” The application was filed
    pursuant to Section 37 of RA No. 166. Petitioner Ecole filed an opposition to the subject
    application, averring that it is the owner of the mark “LE CORDON BLEU ECOLE DE
    CUISINE MANILLE,” which it has been using since 1948. The petitioner also averred that
    Cointreau’s use of the subject mark will actually create confusion, Mistake, and deception to
    buying public. Cointreau filed its answer claiming to be the true owner if the subject mark. It
    averred that Le Cordon Bleu is a culinary school of worldwide acclaim which was established
    in Paris, France in 1895. It also has trained students from more than 80 nationalities, including
    Ecole’s directress, Ms. Lourdes L. Dayrit. Thus, Cointreau concluded that Ecole’s claim of
    being the exclusive owner of the subject mark is a fraudulent misrepresentation. Bureau of
    Legal Affairs (BLA) sustained Ecole;s opposition. On appeal, the IPO Director General
    reversed and set aside the BLA’s decision, thus granting Cointreu’s appeal and allowing the
    registration of the subject mark. The CA affirmed the IPO Director General’s Decision in toto.
    ISSUE

    Whether the CA was correct in upholding the IPO Director General’s ruling that Cointreau is
    the true and lawful owner of the subject mark and thus, entitled to have the same registered
    under its name.

    RATIO

    Yes.

    It is clear that actual use in commerce is also the test of ownership but the mark must not have
    been so appropriated by another. Nevertheless, foreign marks which are not registered are still
    accorded protection against infringement and/or unfair competition. At this point, it is worthy to
    emphasize that the Philippines and France, Cointreau’s country of origin, are both signatories to
    the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention). Thus, under
    Philippine law, a trade name of a national of a State that is a party to the Paris Convention,
    whether or not the trade name forms part of a trademark, is protected without the obligation of
    filing or registration. It is also clear that at the time Ecole started using the subject mark, the
    same was already being used by Cointreau, albeit abroad, of which Ecole’s directress was fully
    aware, being an alumna of the latter’s culinary school. Hence, Ecole cannot claim any tinge of
    ownership whatsoever over the subject mark as Cointreau is the true and lawful owner thereof.
    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the December 23, 2008 Decision of the Court of
    Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104672 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like