marii/yn f. retutal - 121.58.254.45121.58.254.45/ipcaselibrary/ipcasepdf/IPC14-2011-00500.pdf · marii/yn f. retutal IPRS IV Bureauof Legal Affairs @ [email protected] ©+632-2386300

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES

BIOFARMA,

Opposer,

IPCNo. 14-2011-00500

Opposition to:

Appln. Serial No. 4-2011-005630

Date Filed: 17 May 2011

TM: "GLIZID"

-versus-

PANACEA BIOTECH LTD.,

Respondent- Applicant.

■

}V ----

NOTICE OF ORDER

SYCIP SALAZAR HERNANDEZ & GATMAITAN

Counsel for Opposer

SSHG Law Center, 105 Paseo de Roxas

Makati City

SYCIP SALAZAR HERNANDEZ & GATMAITAN

Counsel for Respondent-Applicant

SSHG Law Center, 105 Paseo de Roxas

Makati City

GREETINGS:

Please be informed that Order No. 2018 - 0\ (D) dated January 16, 2018 (copyenclosed) was promulgated in the above entitled case.

Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 9 of the IPOPHL Memorandum Circular No. 16-007 series of

2016, any party may appeal the final order to the Office of the Director General within thirty (30)

days after receipt of the final order together with the payment of applicable fees.

Taguig City, January 18, 2018.

marii/yn f. retutalIPRS IV

Bureau of Legal Affairs

@ www.ipophil.gov.ph

Q [email protected]

© +632-2386300

til +632-5539480

Intellectual Property Center

«?8 Upper McKinkry Road

McKinlcy Hill lown Center

hort Uonilacio, raguiq City

1634 MUhppuws

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES

BIOFARMA,

Opposer,

IPC No. 14-2011-00500

Opposition to:

-versus-

PANACEA BIOTECH LTD.,

Respondent-Applicant.

—x

Application No. 4-2011-005630

Date Filed: 17 May 2011

Trademark: GLIZID

Order No. 2018 - Ol (D)

ORDER

BIOFARMA ("Opposer") filed an opposition to Trademark Application

No. 4-2011-005630. The records show, however, that the subject trademark

application has already been finally refused1.

The records show that the Respondent-Applicant filed the subject

trademark application on 17 May 2011. Under the rules, the Respondent-

Applicant is required to file a Declaration of Actual Use (DAU) within three (3)

years from the filing date of the application in order to maintain its application.

This requirement is expressly mandated in Section 124.2 of R. A. No. 8293, also

known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines ("IP Code"), as

amended, which provides that:

"124.2. The applicant or the registrant shall file a declaration of actual

use of the mark with evidence to that effect, as prescribed by the

Regulations within three (3) years from the filing date of the application.

Otherwise, the application shall be refused or the mark shall be removed

from the Register by the Director."

The records are bereft of proof that Respondent-Applicant filed the

required DAU within three (3) years from the filing date of its application which

is due in 2014. This resulted in the refusal of the Respondent-Applicant's

trademark application. Thus, since Trademark Application No. 4-2011-005630

has been finally refused for failure to file the DAU, there is in effect no

application to be opposed so to speak of. The issue, therefore, of whether the

subject trademark application should be refused registration or not has already

been rendered moot and academic and to which this Office cannot pass upon.

1 http://www.wipo.int/branddb/ph/en/

@ www.ipophil.gov.ph

© [email protected]

O +632-2386300

)i +632-5539480

Intellectual Property Center

#28 Upper McKinley Road

McKinley Hill Town Center

Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City

1634 Philippines

In Mattel, Inc. v. Francisco2, the Supreme Court has already ruled that:

"It cannot be gainsaid that for a court to exercise its power of

adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy — one which

involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims

susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic

or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by

a court of justice. Where the issue has become moot and academic, there

is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereof would be of no

practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic

questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually

challenging."

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this case is deemed moot and

academic for the reason aforementioned.

SO ORDERED.

Taguig City, 16 January 2018.

Atty. NATHANIEL S. AREVALO

Director W, Bureau of Legal Affairs

2 G. R. No. 166886,30 July 2008.