Case Studies

Contexto
Una empresa española de ropa se implantó con éxito en Indonesia, donde abrió una cadena de tiendas de ropa de su marca, y tenía intención de hacer lo mismo en el sur de Tailandia. El propietario de la empresa era consciente del valor de una marca comercial, y ya había registrado la suya en Indonesia, bajo la clase internacional 25, que contempla "prendas de vestir", "artículos de sombrerería" y "calzado".

Por su experiencia en Indonesia, sabía que el proceso de registro de una marca comercial podía alargarse hasta dos años. Por consiguiente, tan pronto como se planteó abrir una filial en Tailandia, inició el registro de la marca comercial en dicho país. Los bienes objeto de la solicitud eran los mismos que protegía la marca comercial registrada en Indonesia (es decir, "prendas de vestir", "artículos de sombrerería" y "calzado"). No obstante, se le denegó el registro de la marca en Tailandia porque la descripción de los artículos era demasiado amplia según las prácticas de registro de marcas comerciales del país.

Background

A famous French culinary school tried to register its 1895 trade mark LE CORDON BLEU in the Philippines but it was opposed by a local entity which was owned by one of the graduates of the same school. The graduate started using the same mark in the Philippines long before the French school tried to register but never applied for trade mark registration. The local entity argued that it was the first to use the mark in the Philippines, thus it should be entitled to register the mark ahead of the French school. Subsequent to filing the opposition, the local entity filed its own trade mark application covering the same mark.

Background In 1994, the German company Birkenstock Orthopaedie Gmbh & Co., filed several trade mark applications for its mark ‘BIRKENSTOCK’ and its variants in the Philippines. To its surprise, Birkenstock learned that its ‘BIRKENSTOCK’ trade mark was already registered to a Philippine company called Philippine Shoe Expo Marketing Corporation (Shoe Expo). Birkenstock quickly filed actions for cancellation against the registered mark. While the cancellation case was pending, Shoe Expo failed to file the required 10th year Declaration of Actual Use (DAU). Failure to file the DAU results in the trade mark registrations being deemed withdrawn. Because of this, the cancellation action filed by Birkenstock was dismissed for being moot and academic, paving the way for its own trade mark applications to be allowed. Shoe Expo, not deterred by the cancellation of its registration, filed oppositions to the trade mark applications of Birkenstock, on the grounds that it had been using the mark ‘BIRKENSTOCK’ for over 16 years in the Philippines and that it had re-applied for said trade marks, and had also obtained copyright registration for the word ‘BIRKENSTOCK’ in 1991.

Background Company A is a media company in Singapore with commercial interests in television, radio broadcasting and print publishing. The company operates an English news channel and is the registered proprietor of the ‘HHH’ Mark in Class 35 (Advertising; Business Management; Business Administration and Office Functions) of the Nice Trade Mark Classification System. Company B is a media and entertainment company which provides direct-to-home satellite television services in Malaysia and Brunei, amongst others. Company B applied to register a mark, the ‘BBB’ mark, which was allegedly similar in design to that of Company A, who then relied on sections 8(2) (b) and 8(3) of the Trade Marks Act to oppose Company B’s application. However, the Trade Marks Registrar concluded that there was a low likelihood of confusion between the marks. Company A then appealed to the High Court against the Registrar’s decision.