Professional Documents
Culture Documents
McDonalds vs. MacJoy, G.R. No. 166115, February 2, 2007
McDonalds vs. MacJoy, G.R. No. 166115, February 2, 2007
which rejected
herein
respondent
MacJoy
FastFood
Corporations
application for registration of the
trademark MACJOY & DEVICE; and
McDONALDS
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
2. Resolution
dated 12
November
[2]
2004 denying the petitioners motion
for reconsideration.
- versus
MACJOY
FASTFOOD
CORPORATION,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
GARCIA, J.:
In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court, herein petitioner McDonalds
Corporation seeks the reversal and setting aside of
the following issuances of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. SP No. 57247, to wit:
1. Decision
dated
29
July
[1]
2004 reversing an earlier decision of
Delaware,
USA,
filed
a
verified Notice
of
[3]
Opposition against the respondents application
claiming that the trademark MACJOY & DEVICE so
resembles its corporate logo, otherwise known as the
Golden Arches or M design, and its marks McDonalds,
McChicken, MacFries, BigMac, McDo, McSpaghetti,
McSnack, and Mc, (hereinafter collectively known as
the MCDONALDS marks) such that when used on
identical or related goods, the trademark applied
for would confuse or deceive purchasers into
believing that the goods originate from the same
source or origin. Likewise, the petitioner alleged that
the respondents use and adoption in bad faith of the
MACJOY & DEVICE mark would falsely tend to suggest
a connection or affiliation with petitioners restaurant
services and food products, thus, constituting a fraud
upon the general public and further cause the
dilution of the distinctiveness of petitioners
registered
and
internationally
recognized
MCDONALDS marks to its prejudice and irreparable
damage. The application and the opposition
thereto was docketed as Inter Partes Case No. 3861.
Respondent denied the aforementioned allegations of
the petitioner and averred that it has used the mark
MACJOY for the past many years in good faith and
has spent considerable sums of money for said
marks extensive promotion in tri-media, especially in
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE
DECISION OF THE IPO DATED 28 DECEMBER 1998 AND
ITS ORDER DATED 14 JANUARY 2000 WERE NOT BASED
ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
[24]
downright
unmeritorious. For the
requirement
of actual use in commerce x x x in the Philippines
before one may register a trademark, trade-name
and
service
mark
under
the
Trademark
[33]
Law
pertains to the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines and is not only confined to a certain
region, province, city or barangay.
Likewise wanting in merit is the respondents
claim that the petitioner cannot acquire ownership of
the word Mac because it is a personal name which
may not be monopolized as a trademark as against
others of the same name or surname. As stated
earlier, once a trademark has been registered, the
validity of the mark is prima faciepresumed. In this
case, the respondent failed to overcome such
presumption. We agree with the observations of the
petitioner regarding the respondents explanation
that the word MACJOY is based on the name of its
presidents niece, Scarlett Yu Carcell. In the words of
the petitioner:
First of all, Respondent failed to present
evidence to support the foregoing claim which, at best,
is a mere self-serving assertion. Secondly, it cannot be
denied that there is absolutely no connection between
the name Scarlett Yu Carcel and MacJoy to merit the
coinage of the latter word. Even assuming that the
WHEREFORE,
the
instant
petition
is GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision and