Case Digest (G.R. No. 175980)
Facts:
This is Sehwani, Incorporated and/or Benitas Frites, Inc. v. In‑N‑Out Burger, Inc., G.R. No. 171053, October 15, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Respondent IN‑N‑OUT Burger, Inc., a foreign corporation organized under California law and not doing business in the Philippines, filed an administrative complaint with the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office (BLA‑IPO) against petitioners Sehwani, Inc. and Benitas Frites, Inc. for violation of intellectual property rights, attorneys’ fees, damages and for injunctive relief. Respondent alleged ownership of the tradename and marks IN‑N‑OUT, IN‑N‑OUT Burger & Arrow Design, and IN‑N‑OUT Burger Logo, used since 1948 and registered abroad; it alleged that Sehwani had earlier obtained Philippine Trademark Registration No. 56666 for a mark confusingly similar to IN‑N‑OUT on December 17, 1993 and later licensed Benitas Frites to use the mark.
On December 22, 2003, Bureau Director Estrellita Beltran‑Abelardo issued Decision No. 2003‑02: she found respondent had legal capacity to sue and that its marks were internationally well‑known, cancelled Registration No. 56666, and ordered petitioners to cease and desist from using the IN‑N‑OUT marks (and certain other marks). Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration; respondent filed a partial reconsideration. The BLA‑IPO denied the motions in Resolution No. 2004‑18 (October 28, 2004) and Resolution No. 2005‑05 (April 25, 2005).
Petitioners attempted to appeal to the Director General of the IPO (Appeal No. 14‑2004‑0004). Director General Emma C. Francisco, in an Order dated December 7, 2004, granted a motion to admit a copy of the Bureau decision but dismissed the appeal as filed out of time. Petitioners sought relief in the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 88004), which, by Decision dated October 21, 2005, dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed that the late appeal rendered the BLA‑IPO decisions final and executory.
A further development: respondent notified the Court of Appeals that on December 23, 2005 Director General Adrian S. Cristobal, Jr. had rendered a decision in a different appeal (Appeal 10‑05‑01) finding petitioners guilty of unfair competition. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Director General’s dismissal of petitioners’ appeal for being filed out of time proper?
- May respondent, a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines, sue to protect its trademarks under R.A. No. 8293 and international agreements?
- Were petitioners’ trademark registration and use subject to cancellation for misrepresenting the source of goods/services, and are respondent’s claim...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)