MONTRES Rolex S.A., the owner of the “Rolex” trademark for watches, filed against 246 Corporation a suit for trademark infringement, damages, and injunction. The complaint alleged that 246 used without authority the mark “Rolex” in its business name “Rolex Music Lounge” and newspaper advertisements as “Rolex Music Lounge, KTV, Disco & Party Club.” In its answer to the complaint, 246 argued that no trademark infringement exists considering that its entertainment business is totally unrelated to the items sold by “Rolex” such as watches, clocks, and bracelets.
The case reached the Supreme Court on technicality issues. The High Court remanded the case to the trial court for trial but made the observation that although the music lounge is unrelated to “Rolex” watches, “Rolex” must prove that its mark is well-known both internationally and in the Philippines, and that its interests are likely to be damaged. For instance, if the owner of “Rolex” will be precluded from expanding its business to those unrelated goods, or services, or if its interests will be damaged because of the inferior quality of the goods or services of 246. (246 Corporation vs. Daway, G.R. No. 157216, November 20, 2003)
(clint.fabiosa@iprotect.ph / analiza.villamor@iprotect.ph)
r