Case Digest (G.R. No. 166115) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On March 14, 1991, MacJoy Fastfood Corporation, a Cebu‐based domestic company engaged in the sale of fried chicken, burgers, fries, spaghetti, and related fast food items, filed Trademark Application No. 75274 for the mark “MACJOY & DEVICE” (consisting of the word “MacJoy” in round script with a chicken‐head device) under Classes 29 and 30 at the then Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (now the Intellectual Property Office or IPO). McDonald’s Corporation, a Delaware‐incorporated entity and owner of the famed “Golden Arches” corporate logo and the family of McDonald’s marks (including McChicken, Big Mac, McFries, and others), filed a verified Notice of Opposition claiming confusing similarity between MacJoy’s proposed mark and its own well‐known marks, as well as bad faith and dilution. In Inter Partes Case No. 3861, the IPO, applying the dominancy test, sustained the opposition in a Decision dated December 28, 1998, and in an Order of January 14, 2000 denied M Case Digest (G.R. No. 166115) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Application and opposition
- On March 14, 1991, MacJoy Fastfood Corporation filed Application Serial No. 75274 for the trademark “MACJOY & DEVICE” covering fried chicken, burgers, fries, spaghetti, and other fast‐food products (Classes 29 and 30) with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (now the Intellectual Property Office, IPO).
- McDonald’s Corporation filed a verified Notice of Opposition, asserting that “MACJOY & DEVICE” was confusingly similar to its family of marks—“McDonald’s,” the Golden Arches “M” logo, and various “Mc”/“Mac”‐prefixed marks—and would mislead the public and dilute its trademarks.
- Proceedings and decisions
- IPO Decision (Dec. 28, 1998) sustained McDonald’s opposition, finding confusing similarity based on the predominance of “M,” “Mc,” and “Mac,” and rejected the application; IPO Order (Jan. 14, 2000) denied reconsideration.
- Court of Appeals (CA) Decision (July 29, 2004) in CA-G.R. SP No. 57247 reversed the IPO, holding the marks dissimilar in color, design, spelling, size, concept, and appearance; CA Resolution (Nov. 12, 2004) denied McDonald’s motion for reconsideration.
- McDonald’s filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the CA’s reversal and the IPO’s findings.
Issues:
- Did the CA err in ruling that respondent’s “MACJOY & DEVICE” mark is not confusingly similar to McDonald’s marks and in misapplying the dominancy test?
- Did the CA err in concluding that the IPO’s decision and order were not based on substantial evidence?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)