7/25/2019 4. Birkenstock

1/2

BIRKENSTOCK ORTHOPAEDIE GMBH AND CO. KG (formerly BIRKENSTOCKORTHOPAEDIE GMBH), v.PHILIPPINE SHOE EXPO MARKETING CORPORATIONG.R. No.!"#$% &rom'l*e+ o Novem-er $, $#.

Birkenstock Orthopaedie GMBH (Birkenstock Orthopaedie) applied for the trademark registrationof BIRKEN!O"K# $ith the I%O& %hilippine hoe E'po opposed the application on accont ofprior se for more than * +ears and registration of the mark BIRKEN!O"K ,N- -E.I"E#& !heBrea of legal ,/airs (B0,) sstained the opposition 1ecase2 (i) the competing marks areconfsingl+ similar and are sed on the same and related goods3 (ii) Birkenstock Orthopaedie

failed to pro4e actal se of the mark in trade and 1siness in the %hilippines3 (iii) prior right o4erthe mark $as not lost e4en thogh the registration of BIRKEN!O"K ,N- -E.I"E# $ascancelled5 as there $as proof of the mark6s continos and ninterrpted se in commerce in the%hilippines3 and (i4) BIRKEN!O"K# is not $ell 7kno$n in the %hilippines and internationall+& !heI%O -irector General set aside the B0,6s rling& !he I%O -irector General fond BirkenstockOrthopaedie to 1e the tre and la$fl o$ner and prior ser of the BIRKEN!O"K# marks& !heI%O -irector General frther held that BIRKEN!O"K ,N- -E.I"E# is no longer an impedimentto the registration of BIRKEN!O"K# as the former6s registration had 1een cancelled on accontof the registrant6s failre to 8le the 9th +ear -eclaration of :se& !he "ort of ,ppeals reinstatedthe decision of the B0,&

!he preme "ort rled in fa4or of Birkenstock Orthopaedie for the follo$ing reasons2 (i) nderthe former trademark la$5 Rep1lic ,ct **5 failre to 8le the -eclaration of :se reslts in theatomatic cancellation of the trademark $hich in trn is tantamont to the a1andonment or$ithdra$al of the registrant6s right or interest o4er the trade mark& ,ppl+ing this rle5 theregistrant is deemed to ha4e a1andoned its right or interest o4er the mark BIRKEN!O"K ,N--E.I"E# on accont of its failre to 8le the 9th +ear -eclaration of :se3 and (ii) BirkenstockOrthopaedie pro4ed its tre and la$fl o$nership of the mark Birkenstock#& E4idence $ass1mitted on (i) the se of the mark in Erope since ;;alit+ foot$ear5 $hich se $as contined 1+ nmeros generationsof his kin3 and (ii) the $orld$ide registration of the mark BIRKEN!O"K#& !he preme "ortdid not 8nd credi1le the e4idence of %hilippine hoe E'po as it $as a1le to s1mit onl+ copies of

sales in4oices and ad4ertisements5 $hich sho$ed merel+ its transactions in4ol4ing the same&!he preme "ort fond the registration of BIRKEN!O"K ,N- -E.I"E# to ha4e 1een done in1ad faith and fond it highl+ incredi1le that %hilippine hoe E'po came p on its o$n $ith themark BIRKEN!O"K#5 o14iosl+ of German origin and a highl+ distinct and ar1itrar+ mark& !hepreme "ort pointed ot that %hilippine hoe E'po o14iosl+ kne$ of the e'istence ofBIRKEN!O"K# and its se 1+ Birkenstock Orthopaedie and that it clearl+ intended to takead4antage of the good$ill generated 1+ the BIRKEN!O"K# mark&

?inall+5 the preme "ort reiterated the principle that registration of the trademark merel+creates a prima facie presmption of o$nership $hich +ields to sperior e4idence of actal andreal o$nership of a trademark& In the $ords of the preme "ort2

"learl+5 it is not the application or registration of a trademark that 4ests o$nership thereof5 1tit is the o$nership of a trademark that confers the right to register the same& , trademark is anindstrial propert+ o4er $hich its o$ner is entitled to propert+ rights$hich cannot 1eappropriated 1+ nscrplos entities that5 in one $a+ or another5 happen to register schtrademark ahead of its tre and la$fl o$ner& !he presmption of o$nership accorded to aregistrant mst then necessaril+ +ield to sperior e4idence of actal and real o$nership of atrademark&

!he cancellation of the trademark registration de to failre to 8le the -eclaration of :se istantamont to a $ai4er of the registrant6s right or interest o4er the trademark and ths5 $ill notpreclde another part+6s s1se>ent application of the mark& ,nd5 a trademark registration

7/25/2019 4. Birkenstock

2/2

merel+ creates a prima facie presmption of o$nership $hich +ields to sperior e4idence ofactal and real o$nership of a trademark&