Case Digest (G.R. No. 221717)
Facts:
In Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. v. IFP Manufacturing Corporation, respondent IFP Manufacturing Corporation filed on May 26, 2011 with the Intellectual Property Office an application to register the OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark for curl snack products under Class 30 of the Nice Classification. Petitioner Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc., owner of the registered Mang Inasal, Home of Real Pinoy Style Barbeque and Device mark for fast‐food restaurant services under Class 43 since 2006 and used since 2003, opposed the application under Section 123.1(d)(iii) of Republic Act No. 8293. Petitioner argued that both marks share the dominant element “INASAL,” stylized in identical red typeface against a black outline and yellow background in staggered format, and cover inasal-flavored food products, likely causing public confusion. The Bureau of Legal Affairs of the IPO dismissed the opposition on September 19, 2013; the Director General of the IPO affirmed the dismissal on Dece...Case Digest (G.R. No. 221717)
Facts:
- Trademark Application and Opposition
- On May 26, 2011, respondent IFP Manufacturing Corporation filed Trademark Application No. 4-2011-006098 with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) for the mark “OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark” covering curl snack products under Class 30.
- Petitioner Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc., owner of the registered service mark “Mang Inasal, Home of Real Pinoy Style Barbeque and Device” (Class 43), used since 2003 and registered in 2006, opposed the application under Section 123.1(d)(iii) of Republic Act No. 8293, alleging that both marks share the dominant stylized element “INASAL” and cover related food products/services likely to confuse the public.
- Proceedings Before the IPO
- IPO–Bureau of Legal Affairs (Sept. 19, 2013): Dismissed opposition, finding only the word “INASAL” similar, that “INASAL” is generic/descriptive, and that the goods/services are not closely related or competitive.
- IPO–Director General (Dec. 15, 2014): Affirmed the IPO-BLA decision and dismissed petitioner’s appeal.
- Court of Appeals and Further Appeal
- Court of Appeals (June 10, 2015): Denied petitioner’s appeal, agreeing with IPO findings; Motion for Reconsideration denied (Dec. 2, 2015).
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Issues:
- Under Section 123.1(d)(iii) of RA 8293, should respondent’s “OK Hotdog Inasal” mark be refused registration on the ground that it:
- nearly resembles petitioner’s earlier “Mang Inasal” mark so as to likely deceive or cause confusion; and
- is applied to goods or services identical, similar, or related to those covered by the earlier mark?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)