Facts:
The case is Fredco Manufacturing Corporation v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard University), G.R. No. 185917, June 01, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner
Fredco Manufacturing Corporation (Fredco) is a Philippine corporation; respondent
President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard University) is a Massachusetts, U.S.A. corporation. On 10 August 2005 Fredco filed before the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) Inter Partes Case No. 14-2005-00094, petitioning to cancel Trademark Registration No. 56561 (issued 25 November 1993 to Harvard) for the mark “Harvard Veritas Shield Symbol” as to goods under Class 25. Fredco asserted prior use in the Philippines by its predecessor New York Garments (first use 2 January 1982) and alleged vested rights despite a later inadvertent cancellation of its registration for failure to file an affidavit of use.
Harvard denied Fredco’s claim, averring long-standing and worldwide use and registration of the name/mark
Harvard (used in commerce since 1872 and for Class 25 goods in the U.S. since 1953), the existence of multiple foreign registrations (including the Philippines), and that Fredco had no authorization to use Harvard’s name or shield. Harvard also invoked home registration and international protections. In a 22 December 2006 Decision the IPO BLA cancelled Registration No. 56561 only as to Class 25 goods; Harvard appealed.
On 21 April 2008 the Office of the Director General of the IPO reversed the BLA and reinstated Harvard’s registration. Fredco then petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 103394; the CA, in a 24 October 2008 Decision, affirmed the Director General’s decision and denied Fredco’s petition. The CA denied Fred...
(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in affirming the decision of the Office of the Director General of the IPO?
- If not, was Harvard’s name/mark entitled to protection (despite limited use in the Philippines) and did Fredco’s use falsely suggest a connection or otherwise violate Philippine law and international obligations such that cancellation or refusal...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: