Bata Industries, Ltd. v.

CA, Tirburcio Evalle, Director of Patents, New

Olympian Rubber Products Co. (1982)
J. Abad Santos
Digest by: Plaza

FACTS

New Olympian Rubber Products Co., Inc. (New Olympian) sought the
registration of the mark BATA for casual rubber shoes in the Philippine Patent
Office.
It alleged that it has used the mark since July 1, 1970 and secured 3 copy
right registrations for the word Bata (which literally means a little child in
Tagalog). Haha.

Bata Industries, Ltd., (Bata Industries) a Canadian corporation, opposed the
registration. It alleged that it owns and has not abandoned the trademark BATA.
Bata Industries has no license to do business in the Philippines, it has no
licensing agreement with any local entity or firm to sell its products in the
Philippines and it is not presently selling footwear under the trademark
BATA in the country.

Evidence was submitted to the Philippine Patent Office showing that 1) Bata
shoes made by Gerbec and Hrdina of Czechoslovakia were sold in the
Philippines prior to World War II 2) shoes made by Bata Industries were sold in
the Philippines until 1948.

Philippine Patent Office ruled in favor of New Olympian and ordered the
registration of the trademark BATA in its favor.

CA reversed the decision, the first motion for reconsideration (MfR) was filed but
CA affirmed its decision. On the 2
nd
MfR the CA reversed its decision and
affirmed the decision of the Philippine Patent Office (that New Olympian could
register its trademark).

ISSUE & HELD - WON New Olympian can register its trademark? YES.
There is clear and convincing evidence, that New Olympian has the right to the
registration and protection of its industrial property, the BATA trademark. Bata
Industries has no Philippine goodwill that would be damaged by the registration
of the mark.

RATIO
There was sufficient evidence to show that any slight goodwill generated by the
Czechoslovakian product during the Commonwealth years was completely
abandoned and lost in the more than 35 years that have passed since the
liberation of Manila from the Japanese troops.

New Olympian showed testimonies of the witnesses of Bata Industries to prove:
1. Bata Industries was never a user of the trademark BATA either before or
after the war
2. There was no privity of interest bet. Bata Industries or Gerbec and Hrdina.
They were not the successor-in-interest,representatives or agents, and
could not have passed any rights to Bata Industries.
3. The Czechoslovakian trademark has been abandoned in Czechoslovakia.