Scribd
Upload
144 views2 pages

Rolex V Daway

Rolex Corporation filed a trademark infringement suit against 246 Corporation for using the name "Rolex Music Lounge" without authorization. 246 Corporation argued that there was no infringement since the businesses were unrelated and no confusion would result. The court found that trademark law has been modified such that use of a well-known mark can be precluded even on unrelated goods if it indicates a connection between the users and damages the interests of the famous mark. However, the merits could not be resolved at a preliminary hearing and required a full trial. Additionally, the trial court properly denied 246 Corporation's motion and request to subpoena a witness, so there was no abuse of discretion.

Uploaded by

ClarkBarcelon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
144 views2 pages

Rolex V Daway

Rolex Corporation filed a trademark infringement suit against 246 Corporation for using the name "Rolex Music Lounge" without authorization. 246 Corporation argued that there was no infringement since the businesses were unrelated and no confusion would result. The court found that trademark law has been modified such that use of a well-known mark can be precluded even on unrelated goods if it indicates a connection between the users and damages the interests of the famous mark. However, the merits could not be resolved at a preliminary hearing and required a full trial. Additionally, the trial court properly denied 246 Corporation's motion and request to subpoena a witness, so there was no abuse of discretion.

Uploaded by

ClarkBarcelon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

246 CORPORATION V.

DAWAY
G.R. No. 157216, November 20 2003

FACTS:

Montres Rolex S.A. and Rolex Centre Phil., Limited, owners/proprietors of Rolex and
Crown Device, filed against petitioner 246 Corporation the instant suit for trademark
infringement and damages with prayer for the issuance of a restraining order or writ
of preliminary injunction. Respondents alleged that sometime in July 1996,
petitioner adopted and, since then, has been using without authority the mark
"Rolex" in its business name "Rolex Music Lounge" as well as in its newspaper
advertisements as "Rolex Music Lounge, KTV, Disco & Party Club." Petitioner
argued that respondents have no cause of action because no trademark
infringement exist; that no confusion would arise from the use by petitioner of the
mark "Rolex" considering that its entertainment business is totally unrelated to the
items catered by respondents such as watches, clocks, bracelets and parts thereof.
It also contended that the complaint was not properly verified and certified against
forum shopping considering that Atty. Alonzo Ancheta, the counsel of record of
respondents who signed the verification and certification, was not authorized to
represent respondents. In 2000, 246 Corp. filed a motion for preliminary hearing on
its affirmative defense; which the court thereafter issued a subpoena ad
testificandum to Atty. Atienza. Montres Rolex opposed, and the trial court quashed
the subpoena. 246 corp. filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals,
which was dismissed. Hence, the petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the junior use of a registered mark on entirely different goods
subsists.

2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in


dismissing the petition.

HELD:
The rule, that there is no infringement in the use of a junior user of the registered
mark on the entirely different goods, has been modified by Section 123.1 (f) of
Republic Act No. 8293 (Intellectual Property code). His use is precluded when that
the mark is well known internationally and in the Philippines, the use of the mark
would indicate a connection or relationship between the user and the registrant,
and that the interests of the well-known mark are likely to be damaged. The court
however cannot resolve the merits considering the facts as to the
existence/absence of the requisites should be addressed in a full- blown hearing and
not on a mere preliminary hearing.

Considering that the trial court correctly denied petitioners motion for preliminary
hearing on its affirmative defenses with motion to dismiss, there exists no reason to
compel Atty. Ancheta to testify. Hence, no abuse of discretion was committed by the
trial court in quashing the subpoena ad testificandum issued against Atty. Ancheta.
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words, where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive
duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law. None of these was committed by the trial court; hence, the
Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy