G.R. No. 205699 . January 23, 2023.
MANUEL T. ZULUETA, PETITIONER, VS. CYMA GREEK TAVERNA CO., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuel T. Zulueta claimed to have conceptualized the Greek restaurant “Cyma.” He formed a registered partnership, Cyma Greek Taverna Company (respondent), with Raoul Roberto P. Goco to open the first branch in Boracay in December 2005. On September 25, 2006, Zulueta filed Trademark Application No. 4-2006-010623 for “CYMA & LOGO” under Class 43 in his own name. While Zulueta was abroad, a Deed of Assignment dated November 21, 2006, purportedly signed by him, assigned his partnership interests to Maria Anna Eugenia P. Goco. Zulueta claimed this was fraudulent as he was in the United States at the time. On March 13, 2007, the Cyma Partnership filed its own trademark application for “CYMA GREEK TAVERNA AND LOGO” (Application No. 4-2007-002633), which was approved and registered on December 30, 2007, with no opposition filed. The Cyma Partnership opposed Zulueta’s application, claiming Raoul Goco created the mark while on vacation in Greece in 2002 and that the partnership first used it commercially in December 2005. The Intellectual Property Office Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPOPHL-BLA) rejected Zulueta’s application, a decision affirmed by the IPOPHL Office of the Director General (IPOPHL-ODG) and the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that the Cyma Partnership had consistently used the mark in trade since 2005, and Zulueta failed to prove he coined the mark or used it personally in business.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the denial of Zulueta’s application for registration of the “CYMA & LOGO” trademark.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the denial. The petition was denied. Ownership of a mark is acquired through valid registration under the Intellectual Property Code. While the first-to-file rule generally applies, it does not mean the first application filed must always be granted if it is unregistrable. The Cyma Partnership’s valid registration is prima facie evidence of its ownership. Evidence showed the partnership was the first to bona fide use the “Cyma” mark in commerce since 2005, predating Zulueta’s application. Zulueta failed to demonstrate he used the trademark in any business enterprise or restaurant personally; any use was by the partnership. The partnership has a separate juridical personality from its partners; thus, Zulueta’s alleged rights in the partnership do not justify registering the trademark in his personal name. Issues regarding the validity of the Deed of Assignment and Zulueta’s partnership rights are civil or criminal in nature and beyond the IPOPHL’s jurisdiction. The IPOPHL-ODG’s findings, affirmed by the CA, are accorded respect due to its special expertise.