ABS-CBN Publishing, Inc. vs. Director of the Bureau of Trademarks

Facts:

In 2004, petitioner ABS-CBN Publishing, Inc. filed an application with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to register the trademark “METRO” for magazines (Class 16). Examiner Arlene M. Icban examined the application and issued a Final Rejection, finding the applied-for mark identical or confusingly similar under Sec. 123.1(d) of the Intellectual Property Code (IPC, Rep. Act No. 8293) to three earlier-registered/cited marks: (1) “Metro” (word) — Application No. 42000002584, (2) “Metro” (logo) — Application No. 42000002585 (both by Metro International S.A.), and (3) “Inquirer Metro” — Application No. 42000003811 (by Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.).

Petitioner appealed Examiner Icban’s Final Rejection to the Director of the Bureau of Trademarks, who affirmed the refusal, citing likelihood of confusion as to goods and source. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then appealed to the Office of the Director General (ODG) of the IPO; after memoranda, the ODG, in a September 19, 2013 Decision, likewise denied the appeal, sustaining the prior rulings on identity/confusing similarity, finding the dominant feature to be the word “METRO,” and noting that petitioner’s earlier 1994 application had been deemed abandoned and that no secondary meaning had been established.

Petitioner received a copy of the ODG decision on October 9, 2013, and sought relief in the Court of Appeals by a “Motion for Extension of Time (To File Petition for Review),” requesting first an extension to November 8, 2013 and later another to November 23, 2013. The Court of Appeals granted only the first extension by Resolution dated October 25, 2013 (warning against further extension). Relying on an unacted-upon second motion, petitioner filed its petition for review only on November 11, 2013, three days after the Court of Appeals’ deadline; petitioner explained the delay by late receipt of the resolution, suspension of offices due to Typhoon Yolanda, and intervening weekend days.

The Court of Appeals, by Resolution promulgated May 20, 2014, denied petitioner’s second motion for extension, held that petitioner violated its October 25, 2013 Resolution and Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, and dismissed the petition for failure to file withi...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioner’s petition for review for failure to file within the time prescribed by the Court of Appeals?
• Was the Office of the Director General correct in refusing registration of the mark “METRO” on the ground that it is identical with and confusingly similar to e...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)