You are on page 1of 3

0 Higit Pa Susunod na Blog Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

Peek into the life of a digital nomad who happens to try law school while working and living a charmed life.

Home DIGESTS LAW STUDENT CATEGORIES ABOUT STORE

7.17.2012 Search this site

Bata Industries v CA Digest Search

Trademarks in
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
Lebanon
with its allegations that it owns and has not abandoned said trademark. The petitioner has no license to do We register and protect IP
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 rights in Lebanon and MENA
licensing agreement with any local entity to sell its product. region
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.
Recent Posts
Issue: Does the petitioner have the right to protect its goodwill alleged to be threatened with the
registration of the mark? Apr 28 2015
Mary Jane Veloso Lives!
NO. Bata Industries has no Philippine goodwill that would be damaged by the registration of the mark. 1
No Comments | Read more
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 Apr 21 2015
either before or after the war. It is also not the successor-in-interest of Gerbec & Hrdina and there there was 5 Reasons Not to Cry Over a Cheating
2
no privity of interest between them, Furthermore, the Czech trademark has long been abandoned in Lover
Czechoslovakia. No Comments | Read more

Apr 21 2015

3 5 Signs You Could Be The Next Trending


Hottie (or Lawyer)
No Comments | Read more

Apr 16 2015
Lawyering and the Digital Age
4
No Comments | Read more

Add a comment
Apr 14 2015

5 When Penmanship Counts


No Comments | Read more
Recent Posts Widget
Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

About Me

Geisha Marie
Follow 27

View my complete profile


Pageviews

5 1 2 5 5 6

Twitter

Tweets Follow
Categories

Geisha Marie 6 May My Life in Law School


@gmmurgirl Case Digests
#Google begins sending first Bars in Manila
#ProjectFi invites, oers
Digital Love Rules
more info on Google Voice
integration flip.it/J0UMD Trending
Show Summary

Declan Connell 5 May BLOG ARCHIVE


@DeclanJConnell
How to Use Medium: The 2015 (25)
Complete Guide for
Marketers bu.ly/1DCnv3q
2014 (41)
pic.twitter.com/G5IGBsC6Hz 2013 (82)
Tweet to @gmmurgirl
2012 (113)
December (17)
November (62)
September (3)
August (3)
July (28)
Yu v. Mapayo Digest
181 SCRA 774
Solid Bank v CA
Digest
Delos Santos v.
Jarra Digest
Yaokasin v
Commissioner
Digest
MRCA v. CA Digest
Pesigan v. Angeles
Most Requested Digest
Letters
Kasilag v Rodriguez
People v. Veridiano
Sample Excuse Letter
Digest
for Being Absent from
Class Due to Illness Puzon v Abellera
Digest
Sample Authorization
Moore and Sons v
Letter to Pick Up NSO
Wagner Digest
or Census Document
Bata Industries v CA
Sample Authorization Digest
Letter to Pick-up An Trans-Asia v CA
Official Document Digest

Resignation Letter Barzaga v CA Digest


Sample with Two-Week Hickok v CA Digest
or 30-Day Notice
Hinlo v. Hinlo Digest
Affidavit of Loss of Esso Standard v CA
Mayor's Permit or Other Digest
Official Document
Sta.Ana v. Maliwat
Digest
Sebial v. Sebial
Digest
Luzon Surety v
Quebrar & Kilayko
Digest
Lindain v CA Digest
Usero v CA Digest
Sun Insurance v
Asuncion Digest
Faberge v IAC
Digest
Mindanao Bus Co. v.
City Assessor
Digest
Juan Nakpil and
Sons v. CA Digest
Balucanag v
Francisco Digest
Phil Refining v, Ng
Sam Digest
Tibay v. CA Digest

2008 (13)

Laws and Found 2010-2015. All Rights Reserved. Simple template. Template images by wingmar. Powered by Blogger.