Title
Ecole de Cuisine Manille, Inc. vs. Renaud Cointreau and Cie
Case
G.R. No. 185830
Decision Date
Jun 5, 2013
Cointreau, a French entity, sought trademark registration for "LE CORDON BLEU & DEVICE" in the Philippines. Ecole De Cuisine Manille opposed, claiming prior use since 1948. Courts ruled in favor of Cointreau, citing its global use since 1895, bad faith by Ecole, and protection under the Paris Convention.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 185830)

Trademark Application and Opposition

On June 21, 1990, Cointreau filed in the Philippines a trademark application for “LE CORDON BLEU & DEVICE” covering goods in multiple Nice Classification classes, based on its French Home Registration No. 1,390,912 (November 25, 1986). Publication occurred in 1993. On July 23, 1993, Ecole opposed, asserting prior use since 1948 of “LE CORDON BLEU, ECOLE DE CUISINE MANILLE” and alleging likelihood of confusion and damage to its goodwill. Cointreau answered on October 7, 1993, claiming global ownership of the mark since 1895 and accusing Ecole of fraudulent appropriation.

Initial Bureau Ruling (BLA)

By Decision dated July 31, 2006, the IPO’s Bureau of Legal Affairs sustained Ecole’s opposition and rejected Cointreau’s application. The BLA held that foreign use outside the Philippines could not establish proprietary rights locally and that Cointreau had failed to show actual commercial use of the mark in the Philippines as required by R.A. No. 166.

IPO Director General Ruling

On April 21, 2008, the IPO Director General reversed the BLA. He distinguished ownership from local use, noting that Section 2-A of R.A. 166 does not mandate Philippine use to acquire ownership and that Cointreau’s undisputed global use since 1895 established ownership. Conversely, Ecole could not explain the origin of its mark and had appropriated it in bad faith.

Court of Appeals Ruling

In its December 23, 2008 Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the IPO Director General in toto. It declared Cointreau the lawful owner of “LE CORDON BLEU & DEVICE” under Section 37 of R.A. 166 by virtue of its French registration and use, and ruled that Ecole’s Philippine use since 1948 was undertaken with knowledge of the French origin, thus precluding any right to register.

Issue Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that Cointreau, not Ecole, is the true and lawful owner of the mark “LE CORDON BLEU & DEVICE” and entitled to its registration in the Philippines under R.A. No. 166 and international conventions.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution: mandates protection of intellectual property rights and the State’s commitment to uphold property.
– Republic Act No. 166 (old Trademark Law):
 • Section 2: registration requires actual use in Philippine commerce for two months prior to application.
 • Section 2-A: ownership arises by actual use in trade, without territorial limitation, provided no bad-faith appropriation.
 • Section 4(d): bars registration of marks confusingly similar to prior marks.
 • Section 37: incorporates Paris Convention provisions, granting protection to well-known foreign trade names without local registration.
– Paris Convention (Arts. 6bis and 8): protects well-known marks and trade names of signatory states against confusing uses.

Supreme Court Analysis

  1. Ownership vs. Local Use
    – Under Section 2-A, Cointreau’s global use since 1895 conferred ownership.
    – Ecole’s local use since 1948, with full awareness of Cointreau’s mark (its directress trained in Paris), constituted bad-faith appropriation.

  2. Territoriality and International Obligations
    – While R.A. 166 requires local use for registration, the Paris Con

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.