Title
Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. vs. IFP Manufacturing Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 221717
Decision Date
Jun 19, 2017
A fast-food chain opposed a snack manufacturer's trademark application, claiming similarity to its own mark. Courts initially dismissed the opposition, but the Supreme Court ruled the marks were confusingly similar, denying registration to protect the earlier mark and prevent public confusion.
trademark dispute
registration
similarity

Case Digest (G.R. No. 221717)

Facts:

Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. v. IFP Manufacturing Corporation, G.R. No. 221717, June 19, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.

Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. (petitioner) is a domestic fast-food company registered with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) since 2006 for the mark Mang Inasal used in connection with restaurant services (Class 43) and in use since 2003. IFP Manufacturing Corporation (respondent) is a local snacks and beverages manufacturer who, on May 26, 2011, filed Trademark Application No. 4-2011-006098 to register the mark “OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark” for goods in Class 30 (curl snack products). Petitioner opposed the application (IPO docket IPC No. 14-2012-00369), asserting that respondent’s mark is confusingly similar to petitioner’s Mang Inasal mark and that both pertain to inasal or inasal-flavored food products, thus invoking Section 123.1(d)(iii) of RA 8293.

After hearings, the IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPO‑BLA) dismissed petitioner’s opposition by Decision dated September 19, 2013, finding that the only similarity was the word “INASAL,” which is generic/descriptive and cannot be exclusively appropriated, and that the goods/services are not closely related because they are sold through different channels. Petitioner appealed to the Director General (DG) of the IPO (Appeal No. 14-2013-0052), but the IPO‑DG likewise dismissed the appeal by Decision dated December 15, 2014, adopting the IPO‑BLA’s reasoning.

Petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 139020. The CA denied the appeal in a Resolution dated June 10, 2015; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated December 2, 2015. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorar...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Under Section 123.1(d)(iii) of RA 8293, is the OK Hotdog Inasal mark similar to the Mang Inasal mark as to be likely to cause confusion?
  • Are the goods for which the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is sought (curl snack products) related to the restaurant services covered by the Mang Inasal mark so as to give...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms