0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
11 visualizzazioni1 pagina
1) Puritan Sportswear Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, filed a petition with the Philippine Patent Office for the cancellation of the trademark "Puritan" registered by General Garments Corporation, a Philippine corporation. Puritan alleged prior use and ownership of the trademark.
2) General Garments Corporation filed a motion to dismiss, challenging Puritan's legal capacity as a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines to maintain a suit for cancellation.
3) The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Puritan has the legal right to maintain the action under Section 40 of the Trademark Law, which states that any person who believes they will be damaged by a trademark's registration can file for cancellation.
1) Puritan Sportswear Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, filed a petition with the Philippine Patent Office for the cancellation of the trademark "Puritan" registered by General Garments Corporation, a Philippine corporation. Puritan alleged prior use and ownership of the trademark.
2) General Garments Corporation filed a motion to dismiss, challenging Puritan's legal capacity as a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines to maintain a suit for cancellation.
3) The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Puritan has the legal right to maintain the action under Section 40 of the Trademark Law, which states that any person who believes they will be damaged by a trademark's registration can file for cancellation.
1) Puritan Sportswear Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, filed a petition with the Philippine Patent Office for the cancellation of the trademark "Puritan" registered by General Garments Corporation, a Philippine corporation. Puritan alleged prior use and ownership of the trademark.
2) General Garments Corporation filed a motion to dismiss, challenging Puritan's legal capacity as a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines to maintain a suit for cancellation.
3) The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Puritan has the legal right to maintain the action under Section 40 of the Trademark Law, which states that any person who believes they will be damaged by a trademark's registration can file for cancellation.
Puritan Sports2ear Corporation is a Penns8lvanian corporation, 2hile General Garments is a Philippine corporation. Puritan Sports2ear Corporation file& a petition 2ith the Philippine Patent 9ffice for the cancellation of the tra&emar: ;Puritan; re'istere& in the name of General Garments Corporation. Puritan alle'e& that the8 o2ne& the tra&emar:, an& alle'e& prior use of the tra&emar: on the same :in& of 'oo&s, 2hich use it ha& not a,an&one&. The8 also alle'e& that the re'istration ,8 General Garments ha& ,een o,taine& frau&ulentl8. General Garments Corporation file& a motion to &ismiss an& challen'e& the le'al capacit8 of Puritan, a forei'n corporation not license& to &o ,usiness an& not &oin' ,usiness in the Philippines, to maintain a suit in the Philippine Patent 9ffice for cancellation of a tra&emar: re'istere& therein. 5+SS<E7 =hether or not Puritan Sports2ear, a forei'n corporation not license& to &o ,usiness in the Philippines, can maintain a suit for cancellation of a tra&emar: 5R<L+NG7 >es. Puritan has the le'al ri'ht to maintain an action. Section /0 of the Tra&emar: La2 states that ;an8 person, 2ho ,elieves that he is or 2ill ,e &ama'e& ,8 the re'istration of a mar: or tra&ename; ma8 file a petition for cancellation of tra&emar: or name. Puritan is un&ou,te&l8 a 3uri&ical person 2ithin the purvie2 of the la2 an& as comprehen&e& in the phrase ;an8 person.; The fact that it ma8 not transact ,usiness in the Philippines nor maintain a suit in Philippine courts &oes not ma:e it an8 less a 3uri&ical person. There is even the e?ception that forei'n corporations ma8 sue in the ,asis of an isolate& transaction: the recover8 of an8 &e,t, claim or &eman&. )s hel& in a previous case 2hich pose& an analo'ous @uestion A=estern E@uipment an& Suppl8 Co. vs. Re8esB, a forei'n corporation 2hich has never &one ,usiness in the Philippine +slan&s an& 2hich is unlicense& an& unre'istere& to &o ,usiness here, ,ut is 2i&el8 an& favora,le :no2n in the +slan&s throu'h the use of its pro&ucts ,earin' its corporate an& tra&e name has a le'al ri'ht to maintain an action in the +slan&s. The purpose of the suit is to protect its reputation, corporate name an& 'oo&2ill. Such ri'ht to the use of the corporate or tra&e name is a propert8 ri'ht, a ri'ht in rem, 2hich it ma8 assert an& protect in an8 of the courts of the 2orl&.