Dear Raza: This is further to your email below.

We have conducted the requested investigation and advise that sending a cease and desist letter and proceeding to file an infringement suit against Mabuhay Biscuit Corporation is not feasible at the moment because we were unable to find evidence of use of the MABISCO mark. Moreover, we cannot proceed to file a cancellation case against the MABISCO mark to be based solely on confusing similarity because the period to file the same has lapsed. Kindly note that a cancellation suit based on confusing similarity may be filed only within 5 years from the registration date of the mark sough to be cancelled. For this case, the MABISCO mark was registered on May 26, 2006. However, we are of the opinion that we may have a reasonable chance in having the MABSICO mark cancelled based on fraudulent registration, defective, incomplete and/or fraudulent filing of Declaration of Actual Use and Non-use of the mark sought to be cancelled. Kindly note that any cancellation suit to be based on any of the foregoing grounds may be filed at any time. Please find below our discussion for each ground as follows. 1. Fraudulent Registration. Mabuhay Biscuit Corporation caused the registration of the MABISCO mark despite the existence of the NABISCO mark, a confusingly similar well known mark having a superior and stronger right. The trademark application for the MABISCO mark and all circumstances attendant to the grant of its registration constitutes misrepresentation on the MABISCO marks distinctiveness and registrability. For this ground we have to adduce proof that the mark NABISCO is a well known mark in the Philippines and in other jurisdictions. Generally, such proof consists of worldwide schedule of trademark registrations and applications, certified copies of certificates of registration and/or applications worldwide, sales and advertising figures in the Philippines and worldwide, advertising materials, copies of court decisions favoring the NABISCO mark, among others. More on this will be discussed upon receipt of instructions to proceed. 2. Incomplete, defective and/or fraudulent Declaration of Actual Use. a. The DAUs filed by Mabuhay Biscuit Corporation are incomplete, defective and/or fraudulent because these failed to provide for the exact location/s of the outlet/s where the covered goods are actually sold, this being contrary to Rule 205 of the trademark rules which expressly require for the exact location of the addresses of the outlets where said goods are being sold. In this regard, please see attached copies of the Declarations of Actual Use (third and fifth year) filed by Mabuhay Biscuit Corporation. Kindly note that the DAUs only provide for the province, city or municipality where the supposed MABISCO outlets are located. Clearly, mere mention of a province, city or municipality

cannot be considered as exact location within the meaning of the trademark rules. b. The DAUs filed by Mabuhay Biscuit Corporation failed to provide for proof of actual use of the MABISCO mark. Apparently what was submitted with the trademarks office in support of the 5th year DAU is a mere visual representation of the MABISCO mark, this being insufficient proof of use because actual labels is required by rule 205 of the trademark rules. Moreover, no other proof of use was filed in support of the said DAU. Please also see the attached copy of the certified copy o f MABISCOs 5th year DAU. 3. Non-use. We were able to locate one of the supposed outlets where MABISCO products are being sold and were not able to find biscuit products bearing the trademark MABISCO. Moreover, we were informed by the checker of the store and some staff that they never sold biscuits bearing the mark MABISCO. In support of this allegation, the affidavit of our investigator and if obtained, the affidavits of the store owner, checker and other staff to the effect that they never sold MABISCO products, would be sufficient. On a related matter and as previously stated the exact addresses of the outlets for the MABISCO mark were not provided. What was provided was a statement of a province, city or municipality. By reason of this, we were only able to locate one of the supposed outlets. Pictures of the searched outlet are enclosed herein for your reference. Moreover, please note that upon investigation in the major groceries located in the Metro Manila area, we likewise failed to find MABISCO biscuits. The above notwithstanding, should we proceed with the cancellation case and provided that no pronouncement on the distinctiveness of the MABISCO mark is made, we may be able to subsequently proceed with an infringement case against Mabuhay Biscuit Corporation by using any and all admissions and proofs of use filed by Mabuhay Biscuit Corporation in support of its defence in our cancellation case. In view of the foregoing, while we cannot guaranty success in having the MABISCO mark cancelled, we recommend the filing of a cancellation case against the MABISCO mark to be based on the grounds stated above. We hope you find our report to your satisfaction. We will await for your comments and instructions. In the meantime, please let us know if we can be of assistance in other matters. Thank you and best regards,

Bernadette and Leo