Case Digest (G.R. No. 190065) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Dermaline, Inc. v. Myra Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (G.R. No. 190065, August 16, 2010), Dermaline, Inc. (petitioner) sought registration of the stylized wordmark “DERMALINE DERMALINE, INC.” (Application No. 4-2006-011536) before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) on October 21, 2006, published for opposition on March 9, 2007. On May 8, 2007, Myra Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (respondent) filed a verified opposition arguing that Dermaline’s applied mark so resembled its registered “DERMALIN” trademark (registered July 8, 1986; renewed July 8, 2006) that confusion and deception were likely, in violation of Section 123.1(d) of Republic Act No. 8293 (the Intellectual Property Code, under the 1987 Constitution). Myra contended that the eight‐letter similarity, identical pronunciation, and shared three‐syllable structure would dilute its goodwill in cosmetic and pharmaceutical skin treatments, and noted a prior IPO refusal of Dermaline’s 2003 application for “DERMALINE.” Dermaline answered ... Case Digest (G.R. No. 190065) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Trademark Application and Opposition
- On October 21, 2006, Dermaline, Inc. filed Application No. 4-2006-011536 for the trademark “DERMALINE DERMALINE, INC.” under Class 44 (skin and beauty services). The application was published for opposition on March 9, 2007.
- On May 8, 2007, Myra Pharmaceuticals, Inc., owner of the registered trademark “DERMALIN” (registered July 8, 1986; renewed July 8, 2006; in use since October 31, 1977), filed a Verified Opposition alleging confusing similarity in violation of Section 123.1(d) of R.A. No. 8293 and dilution of its goodwill.
- Administrative Proceedings at the IPO
- Dermaline answered, arguing that overall presentation of its mark differs from Myra’s and that Class 44 services are distinct from Myra’s Class 5 pharmaceuticals.
- On April 10, 2008, IPO-Bureau of Legal Affairs Decision No. 2008-70 sustained the opposition and rejected the application. Motion for reconsideration was denied on January 16, 2009. Dermaline’s appeal to the IPO Director General was dismissed as tardy on April 17, 2009.
- Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Proceedings
- Dermaline appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 108627), which on August 7, 2009 affirmed the IPO decisions and denied reconsideration (Resolution October 28, 2009).
- Dermaline filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s affirmation of the rejection.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the IPO’s rejection of Dermaline’s trademark application on the ground of likelihood of confusion with Myra’s registered mark “DERMALIN.”
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)