Case Digest (G.R. No. 11490)
Facts:
In 2004, ABS-CBN Publishing, Inc. (petitioner) filed Trademark Application No. 4-2004-004507 with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPO) for the mark “METRO” under Class 16, covering magazines. Examiner Arlene M. Icban refused registration on the ground that the applicant mark was identical to three existing registrations—“Metro” (word) and “Metro” (logo) by Metro International S.A., and “Inquirer Metro” by Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.—thus violating Section 123.1(d) of the Intellectual Property Code (IPC). The petitioner’s letter of response and motion for reconsideration were denied in an Official Action Paper and in the Final Rejection. Petitioner appealed to the Director of the Bureau of Trademarks, who sustained the examiner’s findings, and then to the Office of the Director General (ODG), which on September 19, 2013 likewise upheld the refusal, adding that the applicant mark had been deemed abandoned under the old Trademark Law and lacked secondary meCase Digest (G.R. No. 11490)
Facts:
- Application and Examination
- In 2004, petitioner ABS-CBN Publishing, Inc. filed IPO Trademark Application No. 4-2004-004507 for “METRO” under Nice Class 16 (magazines).
- Examiner Arlene M. Icban refused registration under Section 123.1(d) of the IP Code, citing three prior registrations: “Metro” (word) Nos. 42000002584 and 42000002585 by Metro International S.A., and “Inquirer Metro” No. 42000003811 by Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.
- Administrative Appeals
- The examiner’s Final Rejection was sustained by the IPO Bureau Director for confusing similarity, abandonment under the old Trademark Law, and lack of secondary meaning.
- On September 19, 2013, the IPO Director General (ODG) denied petitioner’s appeal; petitioner received the decision on October 9, 2013 and filed two motions for extension of time to file its petition for review: first until November 8, 2013 (granted), second until November 23, 2013 (unacted upon).
- Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Petitioner failed to file its petition for review by the November 8, 2013 deadline and instead filed on November 11, 2013.
- On May 20, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied the second extension and dismissed the petition for untimeliness; on April 15, 2015 it denied the motion for reconsideration.
Issues:
- Procedural Issue
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s petition for review for failure to file within the prescribed period and in granting only one extension of time.
- Substantive Issue
- Whether the IPO Director General correctly refused registration of “METRO” under Section 123.1(d) for being identical with or confusingly similar to existing registered marks.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)