Facts:
Manuel T. Zulueta v. Cyma Greek Taverna Co., G.R. No. 205699, January 23, 2023, Supreme Court Second Division, KHO, JR., J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner
Manuel T. Zulueta sought registration of the mark “CYMA & LOGO” (Trademark Application No. 4-2006-010623) under Class 43, filing on September 25, 2006. Respondent
Cyma Greek Taverna Company (the Cyma Partnership) — a partnership later registered with the SEC in 2006 and the operator of restaurants using the “Cyma” name since 2005 — filed its own trademark application (No. 4-2007-002633) on March 13, 2007 and was later issued Certificate of Registration No. 2633.
Zulueta claimed he conceptualized the mark and that he and Raoul Roberto P. Goco formed the partnership to operate the Boracay restaurant launched on December 28, 2005; he alleged that while he was abroad in October–November 2006 a Deed of Assignment dated November 21, 2006 fraudulently transferred his partnership interest to Anna Goco. The Cyma Partnership asserted the mark was conceived by Raoul Goco and used in commerce by the partnership since 2005.
On August 13, 2007 the IPOPHL published Zulueta’s application for opposition; the partnership filed a Verified Notice of Opposition on October 15, 2007. After procedural exchanges and position papers, the IPOPHL-Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) denied Zulueta’s application in a Decision dated December 19, 2008, holding the partnership’s registration was prima facie evidence of ownership and that questions on the Deed of Assignment and partnership rights were outside IPOPHL jurisdiction.
The IPOPHL-Office of the Director General (ODG) affirmed the BLA on January 9, 2012, finding substantial evidence of the partnership’s prior and continued commercial use since 2005 and that Zulueta had not shown individual use of the mark; the ODG likewise said it could not determine the validity of the Deed of Assignment. Zulueta appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which in a Decision dated October 15, 2012 (affirmed by Resolution dated February 5, 2013) u...
(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly affirm the denial of Zulueta’s trademark application, i.e., does Zulueta’s earlier filing give him a priority right that renders Cyma Partnership’s registration void?
- Could the IPOPHL (and the administrative proceedings on the trademark application) validly determine the efficacy of the Deed of Assignment and Zulueta’s alleged partnership rights within the t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: