Posted by: Von Derek on July 19, 2018
FACTS:
Birkenstock Orthopaedie GMBH and Co. KG (GMBH) [Petitioner], a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Germany, applied for various trademark registrations before the IPO, one of which is "BIRKENSTOCK" with filing date of March 11, 1994.
However, registration proceedings of the subject application was suspended in view of an existing registration of the mark "BIRKENSTOCK AND DEVICE" under Registration No. 56334 dated October 21, 1993 in the name of Show Town International and Industrial Corp., the predecessor-in-interest of Philippine Shoe Expo Marketing Corporation (PSEMC)[Respondent]. In this regard, on May 27, 1997, respondent filed a petition for the cancellation of Registration No. 56334 on the ground that it is the lawful and rightful owner of the Birkenstock mark. During its pendency, however, respondent however failed to file the required 10th Year Declaration of Actual Use (10th Year DAU) for Registration No 56334 on or before October 21, 2004, thereby resulting in the cancellation of such mark. Accordingly, the cancellation case was dismissed for being moot and academic.
The dismissal paved way for the publication of the subject application in the IPO e-Gazette on February 2, 2007. Again PSEMC, filed its protest. And the parties were required to submit position papers before Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) who rendered judgment is favor of PSEMC, thus, ordering the rejection of application of GMBH.
GMBH appealed to the IPO Director General, who reversed the BLA's decision on the ground that PSEMC's failure to file the 10th Year DAU.
The respondent appealed before the Court of Appeals, who then, reversed the IPO Director General's decision. The CA also agreed with PSEMC that GMBH's documentary evidence, being mere photocopies, were submitted in violation of Section 8.1 Office order No. 79, series of 2005 Rules on Inter Partes Proceedings).
ISSUE:
WON Rules of Court strictly apply to quasi-judicial and administrative bodies.
HELD:
The Court answered to the negative. It is well-settled rule "that the rules of procedure are mere tools aimed at facilitating the attainment of justice, rather than its frustration. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Further, the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily, in Rules of procedure on hearing of Inter Partes Cases.
The Court finds, GMBH the true and lawful owner of the mark "BIRKENSTOCK".
FACTS:
Birkenstock Orthopaedie GMBH and Co. KG (GMBH) [Petitioner], a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Germany, applied for various trademark registrations before the IPO, one of which is "BIRKENSTOCK" with filing date of March 11, 1994.
However, registration proceedings of the subject application was suspended in view of an existing registration of the mark "BIRKENSTOCK AND DEVICE" under Registration No. 56334 dated October 21, 1993 in the name of Show Town International and Industrial Corp., the predecessor-in-interest of Philippine Shoe Expo Marketing Corporation (PSEMC)[Respondent]. In this regard, on May 27, 1997, respondent filed a petition for the cancellation of Registration No. 56334 on the ground that it is the lawful and rightful owner of the Birkenstock mark. During its pendency, however, respondent however failed to file the required 10th Year Declaration of Actual Use (10th Year DAU) for Registration No 56334 on or before October 21, 2004, thereby resulting in the cancellation of such mark. Accordingly, the cancellation case was dismissed for being moot and academic.
The dismissal paved way for the publication of the subject application in the IPO e-Gazette on February 2, 2007. Again PSEMC, filed its protest. And the parties were required to submit position papers before Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) who rendered judgment is favor of PSEMC, thus, ordering the rejection of application of GMBH.
GMBH appealed to the IPO Director General, who reversed the BLA's decision on the ground that PSEMC's failure to file the 10th Year DAU.
The respondent appealed before the Court of Appeals, who then, reversed the IPO Director General's decision. The CA also agreed with PSEMC that GMBH's documentary evidence, being mere photocopies, were submitted in violation of Section 8.1 Office order No. 79, series of 2005 Rules on Inter Partes Proceedings).
ISSUE:
WON Rules of Court strictly apply to quasi-judicial and administrative bodies.
HELD:
The Court answered to the negative. It is well-settled rule "that the rules of procedure are mere tools aimed at facilitating the attainment of justice, rather than its frustration. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Further, the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily, in Rules of procedure on hearing of Inter Partes Cases.
The Court finds, GMBH the true and lawful owner of the mark "BIRKENSTOCK".
