SEHWANI INCORPORATED vs. IN-N-OUT
BURGER, INC.
G.R. No. 171053
October 15, 2007
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent IN-N-OUT Burger, Inc., a foreign corporation (California,
USA), and not doing business in the Philippines, filed before the Bureau of
Legal Affairs of the IPO, an administrative complaint against petitioners
Sehwani, Inc. and Benita’s Frites, Inc. for violation of
intellectual property rights, attorney’s fees and damages
with prayer for the issuance of a restraining order or writ of preliminary
injunction.
Respondent, alleges that it is the owner of the tradename “IN-N-OUT” and trademarks “IN-N-OUT,” “IN-N-OUT Burger & Arrow Design” and “IN-N-OUT Burger Logo” which are used in its business since 1948
up to the present. These tradename and
trademarks were registered in the United States as well as in other parts of
the world. Petitioner Sehwani allegedly
had obtained a trademark registration for the mark “IN N OUT” (with the inside letter O formed like a
star) without its authority.
In their answer with counterclaim, petitioners alleged that respondent
lack the legal capacity to sue because it was not doing business in the
Philippines and that it has no cause of action because its mark is not
registered or used in the Philippines. Petitioner Sehwani, Inc. also claimed
that as the registered owner of the "IN-N-OUT" mark, it enjoys the presumption
that the same was validly acquired and that it has the exclusive right to use
the mark. Moreover, petitioners argued that other than the bare allegation of
fraud in the registration of the mark, respondent failed to show the existence
of any of the grounds for cancellation thereof under Section 151 of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 8293, otherwise known as The Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines.
The Bureau ruled in favor of In-N-Out and cancelled the registration of Shwani.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the Respondent has the legal capacity to sue for the
protection of its trademarks albeit it is not doing business in the Philippines
2. Whether or not a ground exists for the cancellation of the
Petitioners’ registration
RULING:
1. Yes. Section 160 RA No. 8293 provides for the right of foreign
corporations to sue in trademark or service mark enforcement action, provided
that it meets the requirements under Section 3 thereof, which are a) Any
convention, treaty or agreement relation to intellectual property right or the
repression of unfair competition wherein Philippines is also a party; and b) An extension
therein of reciprocal rights.
Moreoever, Article 6 of The Paris Convention, which governs the
protection of well-known trademarks, is a self-executing provision and does not
require legislative enactment to give it effect in the member country. The essential requirement therein is that the
trademark must be well-known in the country where protection is sought. In this case, Director Beltran-Abelardo found
that In-n-out Burger and Arrow Design is an internationally well known mark as
evidenced by its trademark registrations around the world and its comprehensive
advertisements therein.
2. Yes. Section 151(b) of RA 8293 provides that a petition to cancel a
registration of a mark may be filed with the Bureau of Legal Affairs by any
person who believes that he is or will be damaged by the registration of a mark
at any time, if the registered mark becomes the generic name for the goods or
services, or a portion thereof, for which it is registered, or has been
abandoned, or its registration was fraudulently or contrary to the provisions
of this Act, or if the registered mark is being used by or with the permission
of, the registrant so as to misrepresent the source of goods or services on or
in connection with which the mark is used.
The evidence showed that not only did the petitioners use the IN-N-OUT
Burger trademark for the name of their restaurant, but they also used identical
or confusingly similar mark for their hamburger wrappers and French-fries
receptacles, thereby effectively misrepresenting the source of the goods and
services.
No comments:
Post a Comment