INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PHILIPPINES

SARI·SARI GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC.,} Inter Partes Case No. 14-2OO8-DOI94 Oppose~ } Case filed on:

} } Opposition to: }

- versus - } Appln. Ser. No. : 4-2007-012295 } Date Filed 07 November 2007 } Trademark "OKASYON 8Y:

VLSIS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, } MICHELLE V. LIM & Design" Respondent-Applicant. }

x---------------------------------------------------------x Decision No. 2009 - --IJ/L DECISION

For decision is the Notice of Opposition filed by Sari-Sari Group of Companies, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as opposer), a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, with address at 2nd Level, Bldg. A, SM Megamall, Edsa cor Julia Vargas Ave., Mandaluyong City against Application Serial No. 4-2007-012295 for the mark OKASYON BY: MICHELLE V. LIM & DESIGN for goods under classes 14 accessories of semi precious stones, namely, bracelets, necklaces and earrings; 18 bags; 20 accessories of non-precious stones, like plastics namely: bracelets, necklaces and earrings and 25 clothes and shoes" filed on November 7, 2007 by VLSIS Management Corporation (hereinafter referred to as respondent-applicant), a corporation organized under Philippine laws with address at Unit 204, FBR Arcade, Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City.

The grounds for opposition are as follows:

"1. Opposer is a manufacturer and distributor of collections of clothes identified by the famous "Sari-sari" marks and has been in the fashion industry for more than two decades already. Opposer's original corporate name was Mariko Novel Wares, Inc., which was first incorporated on 15 March 1985. Among Opposer's clienteles are famous movie personalities such as Sharon Cuneta. Attached as Exhibits "A" and "8" are certified copies of the Amended Articles of Incorporation of Opposer and its General Information Sheet for 2003, showing Opposer's incorporation as early as 15 March 1985 as the old Mariko Novel Wares, Inc.

"2. In its continuing effort to cater to changing fashion styles through the years, Opposer first introduced its "SARI-SARI OKASYON" and "OKASYON" marks. The words "okasyon" serves to distinguish its particular line of clothing and accessories distinct from those covered by ~ other "Sari-sari" marks owned by Opposer. Using the word "Okasyon" and affixing the same "Sari-sari" serve to identify Opposer's formal wea~ used during special events such as weddings. I I;a

Republic of the Pbilippines INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE

"3. Opposer conceptualized and commenced the use of "SARI-SARI OKASYON" and "OKASYON" in the Philippines as early as 01 March 1997. Said date of first use well predates the 07 November 2007 filing date of Respondent-Applicant's Trademark Application No. 4-2007­012295 for "OKASYON BY: MICHELLE V. LIM & Design". Attached are original invoices and the corresponding cash register receipts showing Opposer's sale of its goods bearing the mark "OKASYON" within the years 2000-2005, pre-dating the filing date of Respondent-Applicant's trademark application, as Exhibits "C" to "C-1" and "R" to "R-1".

"4. Opposer has also participated in various fashion shows displaying its creations under the label and mark "SARI-SARI OKASYON". Attached as Exhibits "S" to "S-2" are true ad faithful print-outs from www.WeddingAtWork.com·slist of events held in the year 2001, including Opposer's bridal shows entitled "SARI-SARI OKASYON: MARRIAGE OF PRACTICALITY AND STYLE" on 14-16 September 2001 (at Power Plant Mall, Makati City), 05-16 September 2001 (at Glorietta 3, Makati City), and 06-27 September 2001 (at Megamall A, Mandaluyong City).

"5. Also attached as exhibit "T" is a true and faithful print-out of a press release downloaded from ..www.kasal.com... a wedding guide available on-line, reporting a bridal fair road show held on 22-23 November 2003 where Opposer was also a participant. Said press release indicates the use of the mark "OKASYON" by Sari-sari, the relevant portion of which is hereby marked as Exhibit "T-1".

"6. Opposer filed on November 23, 2007 with the Philippine Intellectual Property Office ("IPO") its Trademark Application No. 4-2007-013048 for the mark "SARI-SARI OKASYON" for goods in international Classes 9, 14, 18, 25, 26 and 35. Attached hereto as Exhibit "U" is a certified true copy of Opposer's Trademark Application form for "SARI-SARI OKASYON" No. 4-2007-013048, duly stamped received by the IPO.

"7. While Respondent-Applicant's trademark application for "OKASYON BY: MICHELLE V. LIM & Design" was filed earlier than Opposer's own trademark application for the mark "SARI-SARI OKASYON", Respondent-Applicant's use and application for the mark "OKASYON BY: MICHELLE V. LIM & Design" was filed in bad faith, hence, should not be allowed registration.

"8. In 2001, The Beads Works, a partnership composed of Michelle V. Lim (using her then maiden name Michelle M. Valera), Mamerta Lagrosa and Cecilia M. Valera, entered into a consignment agreement (the "Consignment Agreement) with herein Opposer. Attached hereto a1;S Exhibit "V" is a certified true copy of The Beads Works' Articles of Partnership dated 25 August 1997.

2

8.1 In said Consignment Agreement, The Bead Works, duly represented by Michelle V. Lim who was designated as its owner, entered into an agreement whereby Opposer , as owner of the goods bearing the "Sari-Sari" marks, agreed to consign its "Sari­Sari" goods to Michelle V. Lim's company, The Beads Works, subject to the terms and agreements contained in the Consignment Agreement. A duplicate original of the signed Consignment Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "W".

"9. The second whereas clause of the Consignment Agreement clearly shows that The Bead Works through Michelle V. Lim recognizes the Opposer as the owner of the mark "OKASYON", among others:

"WHEREAS, SARI-SARI owns the trademark, copyright and service mark of SARI-SARI GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC., SARI-SARI STORE (Ladies), SARI­SARI (Women), SARI-SARI (Men), S2 (Women), S2 (Men), SARI-SARI OKASYON, SARI-SARI COLLECTION (Women), COLLECTION (Men), AKO (Grace Nono), SARI-SARI PAMBAHAY, BBA (Bags, Belts and Accessories), SPUNKY, Shoes; x x x x " (Emphasis supplied)"

"10. Further, based on Section 12 of the Consignment Agreement, The Bead Works, represented by Michelle V. Lim as owner, is prohibited from using Opposer's marks, including "OKASYON", except with the written approval of Opposer:

"Section 12. 1) It is expressly agreed and understood that the business names, trade names, trademarks, service marks and copyright materials of SARI-SARI GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC., (SARI-SARI STORE (Ladies) , SARI-SARI (Women), SARI-SARI (Men), S2(Women), S2(Men), SARI-SARI OKASYON, SARI-SARI COLLECTION (Women), COLLECTION (Men), AKO (Grace Nono), SARI-SARI PAMBAHAY, BBA (Bags, Belts and Accessories), SPUNKY, Shoes) are all sole and exclusive property of SARI-SARI and that the use thereof is made under the conditions specified in this Contract.

It is further agreed that nothing in this Contract shall ever be construed as giving the CONCESSIONARE or others any right, title or interest whatsoever in or said business names, trade names, trademarks, service marks or others, permission to use the name or any colorable imitation thereof in any manner except with the written approval of SARI-SA~~ . I~ and except as specifically authorized. Neither 0; Ir i

3

CONCESSIONARE nor any of its representative/s will form nor participate in the formation of nor operation of any firm or corporation having the name SARI-SARI GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC., SARI-SARI STORE (Ladies), SARI-SARI (Women), SARI-SARI (Men), S2 (Women), S2 (Men), SARI-SARI OKASYON, SARI-SARI COLLECTION (Women), COLLECTION (Men), AKO (Grace Nono), SARI-SARI PAMBAHAY, BBA (Bags, Belts and Accessories), SPUNKY, Shoes or any of its business names, trademarks, service marks and copyright materials.

x x x"

"11. Based on the 2001 Agreement that Michelle V. Lim signed in behalf of The Bead Works , the latter acknowledged that Opposer is the true owner of the mark "OKASYON". The Bead Works through Michelle V. Lim also confirmed that the mark "OKASYON" or any colorable imitation thereof shall not be used without Opposer's consent. While The Bead Works is the party to the 2001 Agreement, and not the Applicant for the registration of the mark "OKASYON BY: MICHELLE V. LIM & Design", the Respondent-Applicant still cannot be granted registration for the reason that it is not the originator and prior user of the mark "OKASYON", as already discussed. Moreover, Respondent-Applicant is clearly being used by Michelle V. Lim as a mere shield to circumvent the clear prohibition in the 2001 Agreement that the mark "OKASYON" or any colorable imitation thereof may not be appropriated by The Bead Works to the prejudice of Opposer.

"12. On April 10, 2007, or ten (10) years after the formation of The Bead Works as a partnership, Michelle V. Lim formed Respondent-Applicant corporation together with Miguel B. Valera, Cecilia M. Valera, Ma. Angelica M. Valera and Melissa M. Valera. A certified machine copy of Respondent-Applicant's certificate of incorporation dated 23 November 2007 is attached hereto as Exhibit "X". Based on Respondent­Applicant's Articles of Incorporation, its incorporators are the Varela sisters, including Michelle Varela-Lim, and their father Miguel B. Varela.

"13. Respondent-Applicant is a close corporation since there is an identity in its ownership and management. Based on Respondent-Applicant's Articles of Incorporation, the number of the directors is "five (5), who are also incorporators". One salient feature of this type of corporation is that ownership of its shares is limited either to the members of a family or a group of friends or business associates.

"14. It is well-settled that the separate personality of a corporation may be disregarded under the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction whenever the notion of a corporate entity is used to defeat public ;Aconvenience, justify a wrong, protect fraud or defend crime. There would be e piercing of the corporate veil whenever the controlling stockhO[de~

4

and officers use the corporate fiction as a mere conduit or alter ego to circumvent the law, or evade obligations. Moreover, it has been held that the corporate fiction must yield to truth and justice.

"15. In the case at bar, there is legal basis to hold that the contractual obligation on The Bead Works not to use and register Opposer's mark "OKASYON" also binds herein Respondent-Applicant.

15.1 First , The Bead Works is a partnership composed of three partners, namely, Michelle Valera-Lim, Cecilia M. Valera and a certain Mamerta Lagrosa. On the other hand, Respondent­Applicant has two incorporators and/or directors that interlock with two (2) partners of The Bead Works Company, namely Michelle Valera-Lim and Cecilia M. Valera. This proves a unity in control and management of the two entities .

15.2 Secondly, the business purpose of The Bead Works and Respondent-Applicant are identical. Based on its Articles of Partnership, The Bead Works was formed "to engage in the business of manufacturing, knitting, buying, selling at wholesale or retail, xxx goods, wares, articles and merchandise of every class and description, such as but not limited to dresses , infants wear, men's and women's apparel, clothing materials, dress, accessories, x x x". On the other hand, Respondent-Applicant's Articles of Incorporation provide that its primary purpose is to "engage in the business and trading of goods such as textiles, clothing, footwear and leather goods on retail basis".

15.3 Moreover, Michelle V. Lim's major role in entering into the Consignment Agreement with Opposer in 2001 in behalf of The Bead Works, and the filing of the instant application in the name of Respondent-Applicant, is undeniable . This is further bolster by the fact that Michelle V. Lim's name, and not those of Respondent-Applicant's other directors or officers, is made a component of the mark "OKASYON BY: MICHELLE V. LIM". Hence, it is obvious that The Bead Works and Respondent­Applicant are merely alter egos of each other and must be treated as one and the same for purpose of applying the prohibit ion on Respondent-Applicant from using and registering the mark "OKASYON", to the prejudice of herein Opposer.

"16. It is also clear that Respondent-Applicant, through its director Michelle V. Lim, knew of the Opposer's prior use and ownership of the mark "OKASYON" in connection with its clothing and accessories business. Michelle V. Lim was Associate Vice-President of Sari-Sari in 2003 (ct. Exhibit "B" - Opposer's 2003 General Information Sheet), during which time the mark "OKASYON" was already being used by Opposer. In fact , Michelle V. Lim's acknowledgment of Opposer's ownersh ip of the mark "OKASYON" are proved by no less than Michelle V. Lim's own webPag~

5

wherein a write up of her former partnership with Opposer in relation to Opposer's "OKASYON" clothing line was advertised:

"Sari-sari Store, all Filipino clothes merchandiser, teams up with designer Michelle Lim to dress up the modern bride, in a partnership that is said to be, "Made in Heaven". The bridal line, simply called, 'Michelle Lim for Sari-Sari' complement the In-House 'OKASYON' line for special-occasion outfits. x x x x.'

"Theirs was a perfect union made in fashion heaven. Teaming up with innovative bridal designer Michelle Lim, Sari-Sari unveils a new line of exquisitely crafted formal dresses especially (end exclusively) designed for today's Filipina. Complementing Sari-Sari's Okasyon line, the simply dubbed Michelle Lim for Sari-Sari marks a welcome development for today's busy career girls who are searching for 'high quality yet reasonably priced' dresses to wear on special occasions. Xxxx." (Emphasis supplied)

Attached hereto as Exhibit "Y" is a print-out of the foregoing write-up from Michelle V. Lim's webpage.

"17. It is thus clear that Respondent-Applicant's application for the mark "OKASYON BY: MICHELLE V. LIM" was in evident bad faith and cannot ripen into ownership, much less registration. Similar to the case of Shangri-la International Hotel Management vs. Developers, supra, where the Supreme Court found that since therein respondent's president had been a guest at therein petitioners' hotel before he caused the registration of the mark and logo owned by petitioners, the fact that the Respondent-Applicant's director Michelle V. Lim entered into a consignment agreement with Opposer and was the Associate Vice­President of Opposer, proves that Respondent-Applicant is not the owner or originator of the mark "OKASYON" but copied the same from Opposer.

"18. The Shangri-la case is also applicable insofar as it held that priority is of no avail to the bad faith user. The Supreme Court therein held that:

"x x x Good faith is required in order to ensure that a second user may not merely take advantage of the goodwill established by the true owner. This point is further bolstered by the fact that under Section 151 of the Intellectual Property Code, or Article 6bis(3) of the Paris Convention, no time limit is fixed for the cancellation ofi~'A marks registered or used in bad faith," ~If;tJ"

6

Opposer submitted the following evidence, to wit:

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION

"A"-UB" Articles of Incorporation and General Information Sheet

"C"to "R" Cash register receipts

US" print out f website of www.WeddingsAtWork.com

print-out of web site www.kasal.com

"u" copy of trademark application of "sari-sari okasyon"

"V" Articles of Partnership

IW " Consignment Agreement

"X" Certificate of Incorporation

UY" print-out of write up in Michelle V. Lim's web page

"Z" Board Resolution

In the Answer filed by respondent-applicant, it raised the following averments:

"The Opposition is misleading, if not untruthfully based and/or attempts to acquire ownership of applicant's property/ies and/or to appropriate generic terms.

These are shown by opposer Sari-sari's averments and those of the respondent-applicant VLSIS, as well as the following matters, to wit:

1. The trademark on which opposer bases its claim is actually "Sari­sari Okasyon." (para. 17 of opposition; 2nd WHEREAS & para . 12 of opposer's Exhibit 'W") It is not "Okasyon"

2. Both "Sari-sari" and "Okasyon" are generic Tagalog terms. (p. 348 and p. 278, Bagong Diksiyunaryong Pilipino, Exhibit "1" and "1-a")

3. The proposed trademark "Okasyon: by Michelle V. Lim" cannot mislead customers and cannot be mistaken for "Sari -Sari Okasyon."

4. The design and colors of the proposed trademark are far different from any design of oppose "sari-sari", and opposer has not shown any trademark which could be infringed upon applicant­respondent.

5. Michelle V. Lim (of herein "respondent") is, in fact, the benefici~~_ .11 owner of "Okasyon ng Sari-sari:' having previously used sail f I!',.~

7

trademark ("Okasyon ng Sari-sari") with the full knowledge and express assent of oppose Sari-Sari.

Accordingly, since oppose SARI_SARI admits that respondent­applicant VLSIS filed ahead of time (para. 14, opposer's Verified Notice of Opposition, hereinafter, in brief, the "Opposition"), then there is no longer any reason to withhold approval of the application and for the issuance of the "Certificate of Registration."

Respondent-applicant submitted the following evidence, to wit:

EXHIBIT DESCRPTION

"1 " definition of "sari-sari' and "okasyon" in Bagong Diksiyunaryong Pilipino

"2" proposed design of respondent-applicant

"3" copy of apparel identification tag

"4' copy of sample label

"5" Summary of Payables

The preliminary conference was initially set on December 11, 2008 and the parties submitted to mediation proceedings. A failure oif mediation was declared and the preliminary conference was terminated on August 4, 2009.

The issues are whether the opposer will be damaged by the registration of the mark OKASYON BY: MICHELLE V. LIM; Rightful ownership of the mark OKASYON and whether respondent-applicant's OKASYON BY: MICHELLE V. LIM and opposer's SARI­SARI OKASYON are confusingly similar. se merley tolerated. on

The marks of the contending parties are reproduced below for comparison.

Opposer's mark Respondent-Applicant's mark

Uk.aSYf)n~~"j-SAI\! ~'1 : 1"l' Ucllcl 1<, (',/- ~ ' ';.L:I",

OkD-.syo~ -~--

," 8

Both marks contain the word OKASYON. Respondent-applicant's mark OKASYOI\J also includes the indication "BY MICHELLE V. LIM". With respect to the name Michelle V. Lim, a name can be used for purposes of information or mere identification as to the source of goods or services. At the outset, Michelle V. Lim is the signatory/representative of the company THE BEAD WOKS in the Agreement (Exhibit 'W") between opposer and The Bead Works. The Bead Works is a partnership in which Michelle V. Lim is a partner as seen from the SEC Registration No, A199716194 (Exhibit "V"). She is also one of the incorporators of respondent applicant as shown in SEC Reg. No. CS200718158 (Exhibit "X").

Jurisprudence has developed two tests in determining the issue of confusing similarity. However , the Supreme Court in McDonald's Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., G.R. No. 143993, dated 18 August 2004 has declared that the test of dominancy has now been incorporated in the law. In applying the dominancy test, the High Court held:

"In determining likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed two tests, 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 . In contrast , the holistic test requires the court to consider the entirety of the marks as applied to the products, including the labels and packaging, in determining confusing similarity. xxx

The test of dominancy is now explicitly incorporated into law in Section 155.1 of the Intellectual Property Code which defines infringement as the "colorable imitation of a registered mark xxx or a dominant feature thereof."

In Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica de Tabaco, Inc. vs. E. & J. Gallo Winery and the Andresons Group , Inc., G.R. No. 154342. July 14, 2004, the Supreme Court explained:

"The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing trademarks which might cause confusion or deception, and thus infringement. If the competing trademark contains the main, essential or dominant features of another, and confusion or deception is likely to result , infringement takes place."

The dominant part of the opposer's mark are both the words SARI-SARI and OKASYON. Both words are depicted in the same style or font and one is not written more prominently than the other. The two words are the dominant features of opposer's mark. Respondent-applicant's adoption of the word OKASYON even if it appends the name MICHELLE V. LIM does not preclude that the fact that it appropriates a portion of the dominant part of opposer's mark SARI-SARI OKASYON.

Respondent-applicant suggests that words OKASYON and SARI-SARI are merely generic words that cannot be appropriated exclusively as marks . We disagree. In Philippine Refining Co., Inc. v. Ng Sam, No.L-26676, July 30, 1982, the Court explained:

"The term "CAMIA" is descriptive of a whole genus of garden plants with fragrant white flowers. Some people call the "CAMIA" the "white ginger plant" because of its tuberous roots, while children refer to it as the butterfly flower because of i~~p

shape. Being a generic and common term, its appropriation as a trademar;, /l 9

albeit in a fanciful manner that it bears no relation to the product it identifies is valid."

The word OKASYON has no relation to the goods under classes 14, namely "accessories" 18, namely "bags" and 25, namely "clothes and shoes", to which the opposer filed its own trademark application on November 23,2007. (Exhibit U") At most, the word OKASYON in relation to these goods is merely suggestive and therefore capable of being used as a trademark.

"A mark is suggestive if, when the goods or services are encountered under the mark, a multi-stage reasoning process, or the utilization of imagination, thought or perception, is required in order to determine what attributes of the goods or services the mark indicates. (USPTO, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, In re: Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, Serial No. 76/021,398, page 3)"

In Societe des Produits Nestle, SA v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 112012. April 4, 2001.], the Supreme Court explains:

"Suggestive terms are those which, in the phraseology of one court, require "imagination, thought and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods." Such terms, "which subtly connote something about the product," are eligible for protection in the absence of secondary meaning. While suggestive marks are capable of shedding "some light" upon certain characteristics of the goods or services in dispute, they nevertheless involve "an element of incongruity," "figurativeness," or " imaginative effort on the part of the observer."

Opposer cites provisions of the Agreement (Exhibit 'W") executed in March 13, 2001 between THE BEAD WORKS and opposer on the terms of consignment of goods of the concessionaire. Opposer maintains that by virtue of the agreement, the trademark OKASYON belongs to it. The provision states:

12. Restrictions:

"It is expressly agreed and understood that the business names, trade names, trademarks, service marks and copyright materials of SARI-SARI GROUP OF COMPANIES INC., (Sari-Sari Store (Ladies), SARI-SARI (Women), SARI-SARI (Men), S2 (Women), S2 (Men), SARI-SARI OKASYON, SARI-SARI COLLECTION (Women), COLLECTION (Men), AKO (GRACE NONO), SARI­SARI- PAMBAHAY, BBA (Bags, Belts, Accessories), SPUNKY and Shoes) are sole and exclusive property of SARI-SARI and that the use of thereof is made under the conditions specified in this Contract.

It is further agreed that nothing in this Contract shall ever be construed as giving the CONCESSIONAIRE or others any right, title, interest whatsoever in or said business names, trade names, trademarks, service or others, permission to use the name or any colorable imitation thereof in any manner except with the written approval of SARI-SARI and except as specifically authorized."

However, in the same vein, respondent-applicant contends in the Agreement, opposer~ expressly acknowledges Michelle V. Lim's ownership of the mark, to wit: I~

10

12. Restrictions:

Xxxx

"Likewise, is is expressly agreed and understood that the business names, trade names, trademarks, service marks and copyright materials of the CONCESSIONAIRE are the Latter's exclusive property and that the use thereof is made under the conditions specified in this Contract.xxx"

Respondent-applicant further argues that by virtue of the agreement, the wearing apparel consigned to opposer were continuously owned by Michelle V. Lim, and consequently, the ownership of the goods extended to the labels which bore the mark OKASYON ng SARI SARI (Exhibits "3" and "4"). It adds the Summary of Payables referring to the goods in this way, "Okasyon consigned sales" .

The Bureau finds that the word OKASYON rightfully belongs to opposer as owner of the mark SARI-SARI OKASYON. A perusal of the Agreement (Exhibit 'W") specify that the goods subject of the consignment agreement are with the brand name Michelle Lim. If indeed, the mark or brand name of the consigned goods of respondent-applicant included the word OKASYON, the same should have been particularly mentioned. The Agreement provides:

"1. Definitions - The following terms are agreed by the parties to mean:

1.a. "Goods" shall refer to the goods and the product line enumerated and described in the "Listy of Goods" hereto attached as Annex "A" and bearing the brand name/ label/ tag Michelle Lim.

(BRAND NAME)

This definition together with the restriction that SARI-SARI OKASYON is the sole and exclusive property of opposer proves that the word OKASYON belongs to opposer. Moreover, the cash register receipts belonging to opposer invariably dated in the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 describe the sales as OKASYON. (Exhibits "C" to "R").

Filewrapper evidence show that respondent-applicant's filing date for the mark OKASYON BY: MICHELLE V. LIM & DESIGN is November 7, 2007 while opposer's filing date for SARI SARI OKASYON is on November 23, 2007 as shown in a copy of its trademark application (Exhibit "U"). However, evidence clearly shows that opposer is the owner of the mark OKASYON. The Supreme Court in Unno Commercial Enterprises, Incorporated vs. General Milling Corporation, G.A. No. L-28554. February 28, 1983 held:

"Only the owner of the mark has the right to register the same. When the applicant is not the owner of the trademark being applied for, he has no right to apply for the registration of the same. Under the Trademark Law only the owner of the trademark, trade name or service mark used to distinguish his goods, business or service from the goods, business or service of others is entitled to register the same."

WHEREFORE, premises considered the OPPOSITION filed by Sar-Sari Group of Companies, lnc., Opposer is, as it is, hereby SUSTAINED. Accordingly, Application Serial NO~

U »: t

, . . , .

4-2007-012295 filed by Respondent- Applicant, VLSIS Management Corporation on 7 November 2008 for the mark OKASYON BY: MICHELLE V. LIM & DESIGN for goods under classes 14 accessories of semi precious stones, namely, bracelets, necklaces and earrings; 18 bags; 20 accessories of non-precious stones, like plastics namely: bracelets, necklaces and earrings and 25 clothes and shoes", is as it is hereby REJECTED.

Let the filewrapper of "OKASYON BY: MICHELLE V. LIM & DESIGN", subject matter of this case be forwarded to the Bureau of Trademarks (BOT) for appropriate action in accordance with this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

Makati City, 16 December

LLiTA BELTRAN -ABELARDO /I j)... tor, Bureau of Legal Affairs !"'

It