G.R. No. 250800, July 6, 2021
Suyen Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Danjaq LLC, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Suyen Corporation filed a trademark application on February 16, 2010, for “AGENT BOND” covering hair care products under Class 3. Respondent Danjaq LLC, owner of the “JAMES BOND” and related marks, opposed the application. Danjaq claimed its marks, first used in 1962, are well-known internationally and in the Philippines, and that Suyen’s application was made in bad faith to ride on their popularity. Danjaq presented evidence of its Philippine trademark registrations, including “JAMES BOND” (registered in 2007 for Classes 9 and 41) and “BOND GIRL 007” (registered in 2009 for Class 3 but later removed). Suyen countered that it had used the “AGENT BOND” mark since 2005 for a styling gum, claiming it was a fanciful name describing the product’s function, and denied any likelihood of confusion. The Bureau of Legal Affairs and the Office of the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office ruled against Suyen, finding a likelihood of confusion. The Court of Appeals affirmed these rulings and additionally held the “JAMES BOND” mark to be well-known.

ISSUE

Whether the trademark “AGENT BOND” should be refused registration on the grounds that it causes likelihood of confusion with the well-known “JAMES BOND” mark, thereby damaging the interests of its owner.

RULING

The Concurring Opinion agrees with the ponencia that “AGENT BOND” should not be registered. The refusal is based on Section 134 of the Intellectual Property Code, which allows opposition by any person who would be damaged by the registration. The damage to Danjaq is established under two provisions of Section 123.1:
1. Under Section 123.1(d), due to a likelihood of confusion. Applying the multifactor test from the Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases, key factors are present: the “JAMES BOND” mark is strong, being a highly distinctive coined/fanciful mark with significant popularity; and there is a degree of similarity between “AGENT BOND” and “JAMES BOND,” assessed under the Dominancy Test. Likelihood of confusion exists even if the goods are not closely related.
2. Under Section 123.1(f), as the registration would likely mislead the public by falsely suggesting a connection with Danjaq’s well-known marks. The “JAMES BOND” mark is considered well-known based on evidence of its international and Philippine recognition, including its widespread registration, promotion, and the acquired distinction and reputation of the mark. Suyen’s adoption of “AGENT BOND” capitalizes on this fame and constitutes bad faith.
Therefore, the registration of “AGENT BOND” would cause damage to Danjaq and must be denied.