Case Digest (G.R. No. 257075)
Facts:
Innolab Industries, Inc. v. United Laboratories, Inc., G.R. No. 257075, August 05, 2025, the Supreme Court En Banc, Kho, Jr., J., writing for the Court.On July 29, 2015, Innolab Industries, Inc. (petitioner) filed Trademark Application No. 4-2015-008549 with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) to register the word mark "INNOLAB" for goods in Nice Classification Classes 3 and 5. IPOPHL issued a notice of allowance and published the application in its Electronic Gazette. Thereafter United Laboratories, Inc. ("Unilab", respondent) filed a Verified Notice of Opposition invoking its earlier registrations (including the mark "UNILAB") and submitted certificates of registration, renewals, affidavits of use, and scanned product images to show potential damage from registration of "INNOLAB."
IPOPHL sent Innolab a Notice to Answer, which was recorded as received but to which Innolab filed no answer; the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) declared Innolab in default in an Order dated February 28, 2017. In a Decision dated April 19, 2017, the BLA sustained Unilab’s opposition and denied registration of "INNOLAB." Innolab filed an appeal memorandum but did not pay the prescribed appeal fee; the Director of the BLA denied that appeal on June 13, 2017 pursuant to IPO Memorandum Circular No. 16‑007 (rules on inter partes proceedings), citing nonpayment.
Innolab then appealed to the Office of the Director General (ODG). In a Decision dated December 20, 2019, the ODG affirmed the BLA and dismissed Innolab’s appeal outright, holding that the counsel’s failure to pay the fee was inexcusable and that liberal application of rules is limited to demonstrable merit. Innolab filed a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated December 4, 2020 (Special Fourteenth Division, penned by Sorongon, J.), the CA denied the petition, characterizing the right to appeal as statutory and holding that counsel’s nonpayment bound the client; the CA nonetheless addressed the merits and found "INNOLAB" confusingly similar to "UNILAB." The CA denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated June...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming IPOPHL’s dismissal of Innolab’s administrative appeal for failure to pay the appeal filing fee?
- Did the IPOPHL and the Court of Appeals correctly find that Innolab’s mark "INNOLAB" is confusingly similar to Unilab’s "UNILAB" such that registration must be denied under Section 123.1(d) of the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)