Mirpuri vs CA, GR No.

114508, 19 November 1999, 318 SCRA 516

30 AM00000010000005331 2012
FACTS

Lolita Escobar applied with the Bureau of Patents for the registration of the
trademark Barbizon, alleging that she had been manufacturing and selling these
products since 1970. private respondent Barbizon Corp opposed the application in
IPC No. 686. The Bureau granted the application and a certificate of registration was
issued for the trademark Barbizon. Escobar later assigned all her rights and
interest over the trademark to petitioner Mirpuri. In 1979, Escobar failed to file with
the Bureau the Affidavit of Use of the trademark. Due to his failure, the Bureau
cancelled the certificate of registration. Escobar reapplied and Mirpuri also applied
and this application was also opposed by private respondent in IPC No. 2049,
claiming that it adopted said trademark in 1933 and has been using it. It obtained a
certificate from the US Patent Office in 1934. Then in 1991, DTI cancelled
petitioners registration and declared private respondent the owner and prior user of
the business name Barbizon International.

ISSUE

Whether or not the treaty (Paris Convention) affords protection to a foreign

corporation against a Philippine applicant for the registration of a similar trademark.

HELD

The Court held in the affirmative. RA 8293 defines trademark as any visible
sign capable of distinguishing goods. The Paris Convention is a multilateral treaty
that seeks to protect industrial property consisting of patents, utility models,
industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names and indications of
source or appellations of origin, and at the same time aims to repress unfair
competition. In short, foreign nationals are to be given the same treatment in each
of the member countries as that country makes available to its own citizens.
Nationals of the various member nations are thus assured of a certain minimum of
international protection of their industrial property.