MANILA, Philippines—Network giant Globe Telecom Inc. has denied using the “Tonino Lamborghini” brand illegally, saying it had properly licensed the name to be used for its high-speed mobile Internet sticks.
In a statement, the company said that it remains committed to adhering to the highest standards of corporate governance and that it has never tried to mislead its customers.
“Globe Telecom obtained authorization to use the name and logo Tonino Lamborghini through an agreement with Primo Mobile, the master franchisor of mobile phone related products for the Italian brand, Tonino Lamborghini,” Globe external affairs head Charo Logarta said Thursday in a statement.
“The company will not engage in any activity that will mislead the public in the course of doing business and serving its customers,” Ms. Logarta added.
Primo Mobile is a Singapore-based company that has a master license agreement with Tonino Lamborghini s.r.l., a lifestyle company based in Italy.
Globe said Primo Mobile was authorized to sub-license the use of the Lamborghini logo.
“The design of the Globe Tattoo Tonino Lamborghini 4G broadband sticks was reviewed and approved by Primo Mobile,” Logarta said.
The company was reacting to a statement released by Tonino Lamborghini s.r.l. earlier this week saying it was ready to take legal action against Globe for the unauthorized use of the brand.
Tonino Lamborghini s.r.l., named after its founder, is owned by the son of Ferrucio Lamborghini. The elder Lamborghini founded Automobili Lamborghini, an exotic car maker founded in 1963.
Globe earlier launched its Tattoo Tonino Lamborghini broadband stick, enabled with High-Speed Packet Access-plus, or HSPA+, mobile technology, as its fastest mobile Internet product to date.
The marketing campaign, which tapped Filipino-Swiss formula car racer Marlon Stockinger as its endorser, aimed to take advantage of the Lamborghini name’s popularity for building fast automobiles.
But Tonino Lamborghini CEO Gian Lucca Filippi said using a car racer as an endorser in a marketing campaign named after a watchmaker was “deceitful and unlawful since it leads to a serious likelihood of confusion between two different and separate brands and businesses.”