Commercial Law, 2019 Bar — Question A.10

ESSAY

In 2005, W Hotels, Inc., a multinational corporation engaged in the hospitality business, applied for and was able to register its trademark “W” with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPO) in connection with its hotels found in different parts of the world. In 2009, a Filipino corporation, RST Corp., filed before the IPO a Petition for cancellation of W Hotels, Inc.'s “W” trademark on the ground of non-use, claiming that W Hotels, Inc. failed to use its mark in the Philippines because it is not operating any hotel in the country which bears the “W” trademark. In its defense, W Hotels, Inc. maintained that it has used its “W” trademark in Philippine commerce, pointing out that while it did not have any hotel establishment in the Philippines, it should still be considered as conducting its business herein because its hotel reservation services, albeit for its hotels abroad, are made accessible to Philippine residents through its interactive websites prominently displaying the “W” trademark. W Hotels, Inc. also presented proof of actual booking transactions made by Philippine residents through such websites. Is W Hotels, Inc.'s defense against the petition for cancellation of trademark tenable? Explain.

You can write freely without an account. Sign in to reveal the suggested answer and track your progress.