Bata Industries, Ltd. vs.

Court of Appeals

FACTS
Olympian Rubber Products Co. Inc sought registration of the mark
BATA for casual rubber shoes alleging that it has used said mark
since July 1970. The registration was opposed by petitioner, a
Canadian corporation who alleged that it owns the mark.

Olympian argued that petitioner does not have liscense to do

business in the Philippines and that it is not selling any footwear
under the trademark BATA in the Philippines. However evidence
showed that that Bata shoes made by Gerbec and Hrdina of
Czechoslovakia were sold inthe Philippines prior to World War II.
Some shoes made by Bata ofCanada were perhaps also sold in the
Philip-pines until 1948.However, the trademark BATA was never
registered in the Philippines by any foreign entity.

The Philippine Patent Office ruled in favor of Olympian to use and

register in its favor the disputed trademark. It also ruled that it is
Olympian who created enormous goodwill of BATA in the Philippines
through advertisements. Thus, PPO ordered for the registration of the
mark in favor of Olympian.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT BATA TRADEMARK CANNOT BE

REGISTERED DUE TO GOODWILL GENERATED BY HRDINA
PRIOR WWII.

RULING

NO.

The court ruled that any slight goodwill generated by the

Czechoslovakian product during the Commonwealth years was
completely abandoned and lost in the more than 35 years that have
passed since the liberation of Manila from the Japanese troops.
Petitioner was never a user of the trademark BATA either before or
after the war, that it is not the successor-in-interest of Gerbec and
Hrdina who were not its representatives or agents, and could not
have passed any rights to the petitioner, that there was no privity of
interest between the Czechoslovakian owner and the petitioner and
that the Czechoslovakian trademark has been abandoned in
Czechoslovakia.

Additionally, even if petitioner is selling shoes abroad it has no

goodwill that would be damaged by the registration of the same
trademark in the Philippines.