G.R. No. 76193 November 9, 1989
UNITED FEATURE SYNDICATE, INC., petitioner, vs. MUNSINGWEAR CREATION MANUFACTURING COMPANY, respondent.

FACTS

This case originated from a petition for cancellation of trademark filed by United Feature Syndicate, Inc. against Munsingwear Creation Manufacturing Company before the Philippine Patent Office. Petitioner sought the cancellation of respondent’s registration for the trademark “CHARLIE BROWN” for T-shirts, alleging it owned the copyright to the “Charlie Brown” character since 1950 and that respondent had no bona fide prior use of the mark in Philippine commerce. The Director of Patents rendered a decision on October 2, 1984, dismissing the petition and holding that a copyright registration does not provide a cause for trademark cancellation. Petitioner received a copy of this decision on October 3, 1984.
On October 18, 1984, the last day of the 15-day period to appeal or move for reconsideration, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. However, this motion fatally lacked a notice of hearing. A subsequent motion to set the reconsideration for hearing was filed only on October 31, 1984. The Patent Office and later the Court of Appeals deemed the motion for reconsideration a mere “scrap of paper” that did not toll the reglementary period. Consequently, the Patent Office’s decision became final on October 19, 1984. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s subsequent appeal as having been filed out of time, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal based on a strict application of procedural rules regarding a motion for reconsideration that lacked a notice of hearing, thereby precluding a resolution on the substantive merits of the trademark cancellation case.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. While the Court acknowledged the general rule that a motion without a notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper, it found that a strict procedural dismissal was not warranted under the circumstances. The Court emphasized that the case involved substantive intellectual property rights of significant import, meriting a relaxation of technical rules to fully address the merits. The core substantive issue was whether a copyrighted character like “Charlie Brown” could be appropriated as a trademark by another party.
On the merits, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. It held that the name and pictorial representation of “Charlie Brown” were protected under Presidential Decree No. 49 (The Decree on Intellectual Property) as pictorial illustrations covered by copyright. The Court recognized that the petitioner was the actual owner due to prior copyright and trademark registrations. It further cited its duty under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, to which the Philippines is a party, to protect industrial property and prevent unfair competition. Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered the cancellation of respondent’s Certificate of Registration No. SR-4224, prioritizing substantive justice and the protection of intellectual property rights over a rigid procedural technicality.