Case Digest (G.R. No. 76193)
Facts:
United Feature Syndicate, Inc. v. Munsingwear Creation Manufacturing Company, G.R. No. 76193, November 9, 1989, Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner United Feature Syndicate, Inc. sought cancellation in the Philippine Patent Office (Inter Partes Case No. 1350) of respondent Munsingwear Creation Manufacturing Co., Inc.'s registration of the mark CHARLIE BROWN & DEVICE for apparel (registration shown in the records as No. SR-4224 dated September 12, 1979), alleging prior copyright and trademark rights in the character and name CHARLIE BROWN dating from 1950 and thereafter. The Director of Patents rendered Decision No. 84-83 on October 2, 1984, holding that the name and likeness of CHARLIE BROWN may not provide a cause of action for cancellation of a trademark registration.Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which, according to the Patent Office record, was filed on the fifteenth and last day for appeal; the Director declared the decision final and executory and denied relief. Petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals, in a resolution penned by Justice Jose A.R. Melo (concurred in by Justices Nathaniel P. de Pano, Jr. and Segundino G. Chua), dismissed the appeal as having been filed out of time because the motion for reconsideration allegedly failed to contain a notice of hearing and therefore did not interrupt the appeal period; the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of that dismissal.
Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court under Rule 45. The petition was given due course on April 6, 1987. In its pleadings before this Court petitioner raised (1) that the Court of Appeals erred in applying strict technical rules instead of the policy underlying trademark practice; (2) that the CA disregarded its own earlier ruling (AC-GR. SP No. 03432) and this Court’s affirmation in G.R. No. 71210, which recognized that a copyrighted character cannot be appropriated as a trademark under Presidential Decree No. 49; and (3) that, even if the Pat...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals act in excess of jurisdiction or commit grave abuse of discretion by dismissing petitioner’s appeal on strict procedural grounds (defective motion for reconsideration lacking a notice of hearing)?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion by disregarding its own prior ruling (AC-GR. SP No. 03432) and applicable law recognizing that a copyrighted character may not be appropriated as a trademark under P.D. No. 49?
- Assuming arguendo the Director of Patents’ decision was final when appealed, should the Court of Appeals nevertheless have harmonized the decision with law, justice, and equ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)