Case Digest (G.R. No. 206779)
Facts:
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Atty. Ricardo R. Blancaflor, G.R. No. 206779, April 20, 2016, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Levi Strauss & Co. (Levi’s), a Delaware corporation, applied to the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) on October 11, 1999 to register the TAB DEVICE — a small rectangular textile tab affixed to a garment’s exterior — as a trademark covering numerous apparel and accessory goods. On February 17, 2006, the trademark examiner rejected the application for lack of distinctiveness and because small textile tabs are customary in the garment industry. Levi’s appealed to the IPO Director of Trademarks, who on March 7, 2011 affirmed the examiner; Levi’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Levi’s then filed an Appeal Memorandum with the IPO Director-General, Atty. Ricardo R. Blancaflor, submitting foreign certificates of registration for similar tab marks. On March 12, 2012 the Director-General dismissed Levi’s appeal, holding the TAB DEVICE nondistinctive, finding industry practice of sewing tabs precluded exclusive appropriation, and declining to give weight to foreign registrations.
Under Rule 43, Section 4, Levi’s had 15 days to appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) from receipt of the Director-General’s decision — until March 29, 2012. Levi’s filed a first motion for extension on March 28, 2012 seeking 15 more days (until April 13, 2012) and a second motion on April 13, 2012 seeking a further 15 days (until April 28, 2012). The second motion cited, among other things, delay in obtaining a consularized special power of attorney (SPA) from the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco due to Philippine holidays. Levi’s filed its petition for review with the CA on April 27, 2012.
The CA granted the first motion for extension on June 1, 2012, but on August 13, 2012 dismissed Levi’s petition as filed beyond the extended reglementary period, ruling that Levi’s failed to show a compelling reason for the second extension (noting that pressure of other work and failure to anticipate consular closure were not compelling). Levi’s motion for reconsiderati...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in dismissing Levi’s petition for review as filed beyond the extended reglementary period under Rule 43, Section 4?
- Should the Supreme Court relax procedural rules and entertain Levi’s petition on the merits despite the failure to perfect appeal within ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)