Scribd
Upload
33 views

Mcdonald'S Corporation vs. Macjoy Fastfood Corporation G.R. NO. 166115, FEB. 2, 2007 Facts

McDonald's Corporation filed a notice of opposition against Macjoy Fastfood Corporation's application to register the trademark "MACJOY & DEVICE" for food products. McDonald's claimed the marks were confusingly similar to its own trademarks like "McDonald's" and product names like "Big Mac". The Intellectual Property Office initially rejected Macjoy's application but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court then ruled that considering the dominant features of the marks, "McDonald's" and "MACJOY" were confusingly similar and would mislead consumers into believing the goods came from the same source. It found Macjoy's explanation for choosing the name implausible and intended to benefit from McDonald's established reputation and

Uploaded by

first
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
33 views

Mcdonald'S Corporation vs. Macjoy Fastfood Corporation G.R. NO. 166115, FEB. 2, 2007 Facts

McDonald's Corporation filed a notice of opposition against Macjoy Fastfood Corporation's application to register the trademark "MACJOY & DEVICE" for food products. McDonald's claimed the marks were confusingly similar to its own trademarks like "McDonald's" and product names like "Big Mac". The Intellectual Property Office initially rejected Macjoy's application but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court then ruled that considering the dominant features of the marks, "McDonald's" and "MACJOY" were confusingly similar and would mislead consumers into believing the goods came from the same source. It found Macjoy's explanation for choosing the name implausible and intended to benefit from McDonald's established reputation and

Uploaded by

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

MCDONALDS CORPORATION VS.

MACJOY FASTFOOD CORPORATION


G.R. NO. 166115, FEB. 2, 2007
Facts:
On Mar. 14, 1991, respondent Macjoy Fastfood Corporation, a domestic
corporation engaged in the sale of Fast food products in Cebu city, filed with
BPTT, now IPO, an application for registration of the trademark MACJOY &
DEVICE for fried chicken, chicken barbeque, burgers, fries, spaghetti,
palabok, tacos, sandwiches, halo-halo and steaks. Petitioner McDonalds
Corporation, filed a verified Notice of Opposition against the respondents
application claiming that the trademark MACJOY & DEVICE so resembles
its corporate logo otherwise known as the Golden Arches or M design, and
its
marks

McDonalds,
McChicken,MacFries,
BigMac,McDo,McSpaghetti,McSnack, and Mc, such that when used
on identical or related goods, the trademark applied for would confuse or
deceive purchasers into believing that the goods originate from the same
source or origin. On Dec. 28, 1998, the IPO sustained the petitioners
opposition and rejected the respondents application. CA reversed.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents McJoy and Device marks are confusingly similar
to petitioners McDonalds marks?
Held:
Yes. In determining similarity and likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has
developed two test-the dominancy test and the holistic test: The dominancy
test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing
trademarks that might cause confusion or deception; the holistic test
requires the court to consider the entirety of the marks as applied to the
products, including the labels and packaging. Applying the dominancy test,
McDonalds and MACJOY marks are confusingly similar with each other
such that an ordinary purchaser can conclude an association or relation
between the marks.
Respondent alleged that the word MACJOY is based on the name of its
presidents niece, Scarlett Yu Carcell. By its implausible and insufficient
explanation as to how and why out of the many choices of words if could
have used for its trade name and/or trademark, it chose the word MACJOY,
the only logical conclusion deducible therefrom is that the respondent would
want to ride high on the establish reputation and goodwill of the
MCDONALDS marks, which, as applied to petitioners restaurant business
and food products, is undoubtedly beyond question.

You might also like