01 Mang Inasal v. IFP Manufacturing

G.R. No. 221717.
June 19, 2017 (Case Brief / Digest)
### Title:
Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. vs. IFP Manufacturing Corporation
### Facts:
The case involves a dispute over trademark registration between Mang Inasal Philippines,
Inc. (Petitioner) and IFP Manufacturing Corporation (Respondent). On May 26, 2011, the
respondent filed an application with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) for the
registration of the mark “OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark” under Class 30 of
the Nice Classification. This mark was intended for use on curl snack products. The
petitioner opposed the application, citing similarities with its own “Mang Inasal” mark
registered under Class 43, claiming potential public confusion due to the similarity in
appearance and the goods/services they represent.
The petitioner’s opposition was referred to the IPO’s Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) for
disposition. On September 19, 2013, the IPO-BLA dismissed the opposition. The petitioner
then appealed to the Director General (DG) of the IPO, which resulted in the dismissal of the
appeal on December 15, 2014. Both IPO entities found no confusing similarity between the
marks.
Unsatisfied with the IPO’s decisions, the petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA),
which also denied the appeal on June 10, 2015, and subsequently denied a motion for
reconsideration on December 2, 2015. The CA upheld the IPO’s conclusions, prompting the
petitioner to escalate the case to the Supreme Court under a Petition for Review on
Certiorari.
### Issues:
1. Whether the “OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark” is confusingly similar to the
“Mang Inasal” mark.
2. Whether the goods identified by the respondent’s mark are related to the services
represented by the petitioner’s mark.
### Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court granted the appeal, overturning the decisions of the IPO and the CA. It
found that the respondent’s mark was likely to cause confusion or deception among the
public. The Court applied the dominancy test to conclude that the “OK Hotdog Inasal” mark
contained the dominant feature “INASAL” in a similar style to the petitioner’s mark, which
could mislead consumers. Additionally, it determined that the goods for which the
© 2024 - batas.org | 1
G.R. No. 221717. June 19, 2017 (Case Brief / Digest)
registration was sought (curl snack products) are related to the services provided by the
petitioner (fast food restaurants specializing in inasal products), potentially causing
confusion about the source of the goods.
### Doctrine:
The Court reiterated the principle that a mark cannot be registered if it is similar to a
registered mark or a mark with an earlier filing date in such a way that it is likely to cause
confusion or deception among the public. It highlighted the importance of both the
dominancy test and the holistic test in determining similarity between marks, with a
preference for the dominancy test in this case.
### Class Notes:

– A trademark can be opposed based on the likelihood of confusion or deception under
Section 123.1(d)(iii) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8293.
– The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the dominant features of competing
trademarks to determine infringement.
– The holistic test requires consideration of the entirety of the marks and their appearance
in relation to the goods or services to which they are attached.
– Goods and services are considered related if they are non-identical but logically connected
in a way that consumers may assume they originate from the same source.
### Historical Background:

This case underscores the complexities of trademark law in the Philippines, emphasizing the
need for clear distinctions between marks to prevent consumer confusion. It illustrates the
careful balance courts must strike in protecting intellectual property rights while ensuring
fair competition and consumer protection in the market.
© 2024 - batas.org | 2

01 Mang Inasal v. IFP Manufacturing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 Mang Inasal v. IFP Manufacturing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 Mang Inasal v. IFP Manufacturing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 221717.

June 19, 2017 (Case Brief / Digest)

### Court’s Decision:

### Class Notes:

### Historical Background:

You might also like