Professional Documents
Culture Documents
B1D Fredco Manufacturing Corporation v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
B1D Fredco Manufacturing Corporation v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
Facts:
Fredco Manufacturing Corporation (Fredco) filed before the Bureau of Legal Affairs of
the Philippine Intellectual Property Office a Petition for Cancellation of Registration No. 56561
issued to President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard University) for the mark “Harvard
Veritas Shield Symbol” under classes 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28.
Fredco claimed that Harvard University had no right to register the mark in class 25,
since its Philippine registration was based on a foreign registration. Thus, Harvard University
could not have been considered as a prior adopter and user of the mark in the Philippines.
Fredco explained that the mark was first used in the Philippines by its predecessor-in-interest
New York Garments as early as 1982, and a certificate of registration was issued in 1988 for
goods under class 25. Although the registration was cancelled for the non-filing of an affidavit of
use, the fact remained that the registration preceded Harvard University’s use of the subject mark
in the Philippines.
Harvard University, on the other hand claimed that the name and mark “Harvard” was
adopted in 1639 as the name of Harvard College of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. The marks
“Harvard” and “Harvard Veritas Shield Symbol,” had been used in commerce since 1872, and
was registered in more than 50 countries.
The Bureau of Legal Affairs ruled in favor of Fredco and ordered the cancellation of
Registration No. 56561. It found Fredco to be the prior user and adopter of the mark “Harvard”
in the Philippines. On appeal, the Office of the Director General of the Intellectual Property
Office reversed the BLA ruling on the ground that more than the use of the trademark in the
Philippines, the applicant must be the owner of the mark sought to be registered. Fredco, not
being the owner of the mark, had no right to register it.
The Court Appeals affirmed the decision of the Office of the Director General. Fredco
appealed the decision with the Supreme Court. In its appeal, Fredco insisted that the date of
actual use in the Philippines should prevail on the issue of who had a better right to the mark.
Issue:
Yes. Fredco’s use of the mark “Harvard,” coupled with its claimed origin in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, obviously suggests a false connection with Harvard University. On this ground
alone, Fredco’s registration of the mark “Harvard” should have been disallowed. Indisputably,
Fredco does not have any affiliation or connection with Harvard University, or even with
Cambridge, Massachusetts. Fredco or its predecessor New York Garments was not established in
1936, or in the U.S.A. as indicated by Fredco in its oblong logo.
Under Philippine law, a trade name of a national of a State that is a party to the Paris
Convention, whether or not the trade name forms part of a trademark, is protected “without the
obligation of filing or registration.” “Harvard” is the trade name of the world famous Harvard
University, and it is also a trademark of Harvard University. Under Article 8 of the Paris
Convention, as well as Section 37 of R.A. No. 166, Harvard University is entitled to protection
in the Philippines of its trade name “Harvard” even without registration of such trade name in the
Philippines. This means that no educational entity in the Philippines can use the trade name
“Harvard” without the consent of Harvard University. Likewise, no entity in the Philippines can
claim, expressly or impliedly through the use of the name and mark “Harvard,” that its products
or services are authorized, approved, or licensed by, or sourced from, Harvard University
without the latter’s consent.