Case Digest (G.R. No. 183404)
Facts:
Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. v. Norvy Abyadang, G.R. No. 183404, October 13, 2010, the Supreme Court Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Norvy A. Abyadang (respondent), proprietor of NS Northern Organic Fertilizer, filed a trademark application with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) on January 16, 2004 for the mark "NS D-10 PLUS" for fungicide (Application No. 4-2004-00450). The IPO gave the application due course and it was published for opposition on July 28, 2005. Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. (petitioner) filed a Verified Notice of Opposition on August 17, 2005 (IPC No. 14-2005-00099), alleging that Abyadang’s mark was confusingly similar to its registered trademark "D-10 80 WP" (Registration No. 4-2002-010272), which Berris claimed it had used since June 20, 2002.
The IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPO‑BLA) issued Decision No. 2006-24 on April 28, 2006 sustaining Berris’s opposition and rejecting Abyadang’s application; a motion for reconsideration was denied by Resolution No. 2006-09(D) dated August 2, 2006. Abyadang appealed to the Office of the Director General, Intellectual Property Philippines (IPPDG), which denied the appeal in a decision dated July 20, 2007, affirming the IPO‑BLA rulings. Abyadang then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA).
In CA-G.R. SP No. 99928 the CA, by Decision dated April 14, 2008, granted Abyadang’s petition, finding no confusing similarity, concluding Berris failed to establish ownership, and ordering cancellation of Berris’s trademark while giving due course to Abyadang’s application. The CA denied Berris’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated June 18, 2008. Berris filed a petition for revi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in setting aside the IPO/IPPDG factual findings without a finding of grave abuse of discretion by the administrative agency?
- Is "NS D-10 PLUS" confusingly similar to "D-10 80 WP" such that registration of the former should be refused?
- Did Berris establish prior use and ownership of the mark "D-10 80 WP", and may the CA cancel a registered mark absent a ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)