Petitioner’s Claims:
Mattel, Inc. alleges that Uy’s
“Barbie” trademark of confectionary products was confusingly similar to its
trademark on dolls, doll clothes and doll accessories. Mattel argues that its products are items
related to Uy’s products; hence, identical trademarks should not be used where
the possibility of confusion as to source or origin of the products is certain
and that by adopting an exactly identical mark, in spelling and style, Uy
should be presumed to have intended to cash in or ride on the goodwill and
widespread recognition enjoyed by Mattel’s mark.
Respondents’ Claims:
Jimmy Uy contends that there is
no similarity between the two goods.
Emma Francisco, the Director General of IPO, stated that there was no
proof on record that Mattel had ventured into the production of chocolates and
confectionary products under the trademark “Barbie” to enable it to prevent Uy
from using an identical “Barbie” trademark on said goods. On the other hand, Uy submits that the case
has become moot and academic since the records of the IPO will show that no DAU
was filed on or before 01 December 2001; thus he is deemed to have abandoned
his trademark application.
Issue:
Whether or not the case has
become moot and academic
Ruling:
Yes. According to Section 124.2
of RA 8293, the applicant shall file a declaration of actual use of the mark
with evidence to that effect with three years from filing date of the
application. Otherwise, the applicant
shall be refused. Moreover, the issues
in the present case call for an appraisal of factual considerations which are
peculiar only to the transactions and parties involved in the controversy. The issues raised in this case do not call
for a clarification unlike in the cases of David vs. Arroyo, Constantino vs.
Sandiganbayan and others. In the latter
cases, moot and academic issues were still decided for these pertain to
important and transcendental constitutional issues, which are not in line with
this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment