Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
the appeal was not accompanied by the filing fee.
Accordingly, it denied Innolab's trademark application and ordered the return of the filewrapper of the application to the Bureau of Trademarks for action. Innolab then filed its Appeal Memorandum [19] with the BLA. In an Order [20] dated June 13, 2017, the director of the BLA denied the appeal, citing IPO Memorandum Circular No. 16-007, [21] which states that an appeal shall be immediately denied if it is "filed out of time and/or is not accompanied by the payment of the applicable fee." [22] The director found that the appeal was not accompanied by the filing fee. Consequently, Innolab filed its Appeal Memorandum [23] with the ODG on July 3, 2017, praying that the case be heard on the merits and explaining that the failure to pay the appeal fee was due to its counsel's failure to verify if the fee had indeed been paid, caused by the "sheer number and volume of intellectual property cases and transactions handled by the [their] counsel and through mere inadvertence[.]" [24] The ODG Ruling In a Decision [25] dated December 20, 2019, the ODG affirmed the BLA and dismissed the appeal outright. Taking into consideration Innolab's proffered reason for the procedural lapse, the director general ruled that the liberal interpretation and application of the rules may be allowed only in case of demonstrable merit and under justifiable causes and circumstances. [26] In this case, the counsel's negligence was held to be inexcusable. Consequently, it did not rule on the substantive aspect of the appeal. Aggrieved, Innolab filed a Petition for Review [27] under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the CA, arguing that the IPOPHL erred in dismissing the appeal outright. The CA Ruling In a Decision [28] dated December 4, 2020, the CA denied the petition for review. The appellate court ruled that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor part of due process but merely a statutory privilege. Thus, when Innolab failed to pay the appeal fee as required by the rules of the IPOPHL, the BLA ruling became final and executory. The failure of the counsel to ensure that the appeal fee was paid in this case bound its client. [29] At any rate, the CA held that even if the rules were relaxed, the petition must still be denied. Mainly upholding the BLA ruling, it found that there is confusing similarity between Innolab's mark, "INNOLAB," and Unilab's trademark, "UNILAB," due to the following: (1) the marks sound the same; (2) the second letter, "N," as well as the last three letters "LAB" are identical in both marks; (3) both marks have three syllables; and (4) both marks are pronounced with the same intonation. Thus, following Section 123.1(d) of Republic Act No. 8293, [30] or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IPC), the CA held that the mark may not be registered. [31] Innolab sought reconsideration, which the CA denied in a Resolution [32] dated June 23, 2021. Hence this Petition. The Issue Before the Court The Court resolves whether the CA erred i