Case Digest (G.R. No. 111836) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Suyen Corporation v. Danjaq LLC (G.R. No. 250800, July 6, 2021), petitioner Suyen Corporation, a local company known for its BENCH trademark and FIX Bench Salon beauty services, filed on February 16, 2010 an application with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to register the mark AGENT BOND for hair refresher, hair gel, hair lotion, hair treatment, hair shampoo, and hair conditioner (Class 3). Respondent Danjaq LLC, a U.S. company owning the globally famous JAMES BOND trademarks and related Bond marks, opposed the application on the ground of confusing similarity and dilution of its well-known mark under Section 123.1 of the Intellectual Property Code (IP Code). Before the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA), Suyen argued that AGENT BOND was a coined, suggestive term describing the product’s function and denied any likelihood of confusion or bad faith. The BLA sustained Danjaq’s opposition in its October 10, 2014 Decision. On appeal, the Office of the Director General (ODG) of Case Digest (G.R. No. 111836) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Mark Application and Opposition
- On February 16, 2010, Suyen Corporation filed to register the mark AGENT BOND for hair refresher, hair gel, hair lotion, hair treatment, shampoo, and conditioner (Class 3).
- Danjaq LLC opposed, alleging confusing similarity with its JAMES BOND marks, claiming prior use of “Bond” marks, worldwide registrations, and well-known status of JAMES BOND/Agent 007.
- Suyen’s Defense and Use
- Suyen denied confusing similarity, insisting AGENT BOND is a creative, non-descriptive reference to product function (agent = device; bond = binding agent) and argued JAMES BOND was never called “Agent Bond” in the films.
- Suyen showed continuous use of AGENT BOND since March 8, 2005 under its FIX and BENCH brands, extensive promotion with celebrities, and no evidence of actual confusion.
- Administrative and Judicial Proceedings
- IPO–Bureau of Legal Affairs (Oct 10, 2014): Sustained opposition; held AGENT BOND non-registrable under Sec. 123.1(d) for likelihood of confusion.
- IPO–Office of the Director General (Dec 20, 2018): Dismissed Suyen’s appeal; affirmed confusing similarity and bad faith.
- Court of Appeals (Sep 2, 2019; Reconsideration denied Dec 4, 2019): Affirmed; applied dominancy test; declared JAMES BOND well-known under Rule 102.
- Supreme Court (July 6, 2021): Denied petition for review on certiorari; affirmed CA decisions.
Issues:
- Whether AGENT BOND is confusingly similar to JAMES BOND, barring registration under Sec. 123.1(d).
- Whether AGENT BOND infringes a well-known mark under Sec. 123.1(f) despite dissimilar goods.
- Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to declare JAMES BOND well-known although not raised in the CA appeal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)