Case Summary (G.R. No. 241034)
Petitioner
Manila Hotel Corporation, a Philippine entity seeking to register “CHAMPAGNE ROOM” for restaurant and food-service use.
Respondent
Le Comite Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), a French public service body protecting the Champagne appellation.
Key Dates
– March 19, 2013: Application No. 4-2013-003052 filed for “CHAMPAGNE ROOM.”
– November 7, 2013: Opposition filed by CIVC (Inter Partes Case No. 14-2013-00372).
– December 22, 2017: IPO Adjudication Officer’s decision dismissing opposition.
– February 2, 2018: CIVC received the decision.
– February 13 & March 12, 2018: BLA Director’s Orders granting extension and ordering comment.
– April 13 & July 23, 2018: CA Resolutions dismissing petitioner’s certiorari petition.
– August 3, 2022: Supreme Court decision under G.R. No. 241034.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decisions).
– Republic Act No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code), Rule 9 on Inter Partes Proceedings (as amended by IPO Memorandum Circular No. 16-007).
Registration and Opposition
Petitioner’s trademark application for “CHAMPAGNE ROOM” was opposed by CIVC on grounds that “Champagne” is a protected appellation, falsely suggests connection with CIVC, misleads consumers, and is confusingly similar to CIVC’s trade name.
IPO Adjudication Officer’s Ruling
The decision dated December 22, 2017 dismissed the opposition, finding “CHAMPAGNE” had become generic as shown by widespread arbitrary use (e.g., “Champagne iPhone,” “California Champagne”) and that “CHAMPAGNE ROOM” would not evoke the French wine region among Philippine consumers.
CIVC’s Extension Motion and Petitioner’s Opposition
CIVC filed on February 12, 2018 a motion for a 10-day extension to appeal to the BLA Director. Manila Hotel opposed, asserting Rule 9’s 10-day appeal period is non-extendible and no extension is provided.
IPO–BLA Director’s Orders
– February 13, 2018 Order granted CIVC’s motion, emphasizing interest of justice and limiting extension to 10 days.
– March 12, 2018 Order directed petitioner to comment within 10 days on CIVC’s appeal filed February 22, 2018.
Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals
Petitioner filed CA-G.R. SP No. 155049 under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the BLA Director in granting the extension and accepting the late appeal.
Court of Appeals Resolution
April 13, 2018 Resolution denied injunctive relief and dismissed the petition, holding Rule 9 does not expressly prohibit extensions to file appeals and that liberal construction serves substantial justice. Reconsideration was denied on July 23, 2018.
Supreme Court Issue
Whether the CA erred in affirming the BLA Director’s grant of extension to file an appeal from the Adjudication Officer’s decision.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA resolutions. It held that Rule 9’s silence on extending the appeal period implies no prohibition, and administrative proceedings warrant liberal construction to secure just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution.
Rationale on Liberal Construction
Citing Palao v. Florentino and Birkenstock v. Phil. Shoe Expo, the Court emphasized that administrative trib
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 241034)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner: Manila Hotel Corporation, applicant of trademark “CHAMPAGNE ROOM” (Application No. 4-2013-003052).
- Respondents: Office of the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPO‐BLA) and Le ComitA Interprofessionel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC).
- CA docket: CA‐G.R. SP No. 155049; Supreme Court docket: G.R. No. 241034, August 3, 2022.
- Relief sought: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, with temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, to set aside CA Resolutions dated April 13 and July 23, 2018.
- Under review: IPO‐BLA Director’s Orders of February 13 and March 12, 2018 in Inter Partes Case No. 14-2013-00372 granting CIVC an extension to file an appeal and ordering petitioner to comment.
Antecedent Facts
- March 19, 2013: Manila Hotel Corporation filed for registration of the mark “CHAMPAGNE ROOM.”
- November 7, 2013: CIVC, a French public service body protecting Champagne appellation, filed opposition alleging:
- “Champagne” is a protected controlled appellation of origin worldwide.
- Petitioner’s mark falsely suggests association with CIVC.
- The mark misleads consumers as to quality and geographic origin.
- The mark is confusingly similar to CIVC’s trade name.
Ruling of the IPO Adjudication Officer
- December 22, 2017 Decision dismissing CIVC’s opposition.
- Key holdings:
- “CHAMPAGNE” is used generically by various entities in arbitrary, descriptive, and fanciful ways.
- “CHAMPAGNE ROOM” for restaurant and food services does not suggest French origin or CIVC connection.
- Examples cited: Champagne Room at hotels in Spain, London, Miami, Las Vegas, Hong Kong.
- Dispositive order: Opposition to Trademark Application No. 4-2013-003052 DISMISSED; file wrapper returned to Bureau of Trademarks.
Motions and IPO-BLA Director’s Orders
- February 2, 2018: CIVC received Decision; filed motion for 10-day extension (until February 22) to file appeal.
- February 13, 2018 Order: I