PHILIPPINES OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL Appellant, IPC...

~iPINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

RITE-WAY DISTRIBUTORS INC APPEAL NO 14-09-45 Appellant IPC No 14-2008-00263

Opposition to

-versus- Application No 4-2007-010867 Date Filed 28 September 2007

WHIRPOOL PROPERTIES INC Trademark WHIRLWIND amp Appellee DEVICE

C-----------------------------------------------C

NOTICE OF DECISION

ORBOS CABUSORA amp TAGUIAM DIRECTOR LENY B RAZ Counsel for Appellant Bureau of Trademarks 1T-ut 211 Quadstar Building Intellectual Property Office Ortigas Avenue Greenhills Makati City San Juan City

FEDERIS amp ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES IP PHILIPPINES LIBRARY Counsel for Appellee Documentation Information and 2005 88 Corporate Center Technology Transfer Bureau 141 Valero corner Sedeno Streets Intellectual Property Office Salcedo Village Makati City Makati City

BUREAU OF LEGAL AFFAIRS Intellectual Property Office Makati City

GREETINGS

Please be informed that on 22 December 2009 the Office of the Director General rendered a Decision in the above-titled case (copy attached)

Makati City 22 December 2009

Very truly yours

HANIEL S AREVALO V ~Head Office of Legal Counsel

Republic of the Philippines TlTTVT T VpoundVTTT T nnpound1lnvn T pound1lDETpoundlV

I I t I ~iP

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PHILIPPINESj


I RITE-WAY DISTRIBUTORS~ INC~

Appellant

I -versus-

IJ

WHIRPOOL PROPERTIES~INC~

Appellee

x-----------------------------------------------x

J IjQ

APPEAL NO 14middotmiddot09-45 IPC No 14-2008-00263 Opposition to

Application No 4-2007-010867 Date Filed 28 September 2007 Trademark WHIRLWIND amp

DEVICE

NOTICE OF DECISION

i

ORBOS CABUSORA amp TAGUIAM Counsel for Appellant U P1it 211 Quadstar Building 01) )10 Ortigas Avenue Greenhills San Juan City

FEDERIS amp ASSOCIATES LAW~JCES Counsel for Appellee i I I

II

2005 88 Corporate Center lIVlNl

141 Valero corner Sedeno Streets 1)5rfJ Salcedo Village Makati City _

t

l~ BUREAU OF LEGAL AFFAIRS Intellectual Property Office

Makati City

j GREETINGS

~ i VC~ j h f - -~---r------ I

J

DIRECTOR rsxv B RAZ Bureau of Trademarks Intellectual Property Office Makati City

IP PHILIPPIN~SLIBRARY ItJk -5(0Documentation Intormation and Technology Transfer Bureau Intellectual Property Office Makati City _



CERTIFIED TRL- f0Pyen

~~ ~rt f) c 1 ~ l l~ )Jl 1~JI~

~(jrncy 1

Very truly yours

2 HANIEL S AREVALO

V YHead Office of Legal Counsel

Republic of the Philippines INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE

I

1

IJ

~iPJ

IIII1

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF TIlE DIRECTOR GENERAL ~

i1

RITE-WAY DISTRIBUTORS INC Appeal No 14-09-45 Respondent-Appellant

Inter Partes Case No 14-2008-00263 -versus- Opposition to

Application No 4-2007-010867 WHIRPOOL PROPERTIES INC Date Filed 28 September 2007

Opposer-Appellee Trademark WHIRLWIND amp DEVICE

x------------------------------------------x

DECISION

RITE-WAY DISTRIBUTORS INC (Appellant) appeals Decision No 2009-37 dated 17 March 2009 of the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (Trirector) sustaining the opposition of WHIRPOOL PROPERTIES INC (Appellee) to the Appellants Trademark Application No 4-2007-010867

Records show that the Appellant filed on 28 September 2007 an application for the registration of the mark WHIRL WIND amp DEVICE for use on electric air cooler which falls under Class 11 of the Nice Classification The application was published in the IPO e-Gazette for Trademarks on 04 July 2008 On 30 October 2008 the Appellee filed a VERIFIED NOTICE OF OPPOSITION alleging the following

1 It is a foreign corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Whirlpool Corporation which was established to maintain quality control with respect of goods manufactured and sold under WHIRLPOOL trademarks worldwide and is responsible for protection and enforcement of trademark rights globally

2 It licenses Whirlpool Corporation and its various entities around the world to use the marks in connection with manufacturing and marketing major home appliances and related products

3 Whirlpool Corporation which was incorporated in 1955 is a Fortune 500 company and a global manufacturer and marketer of major home appliances with annual sales of approximately $19 billion it employs more than 73000 employees and maintains more than 72 manufacturing and technology research centers around the world its principal products are laundry appliances refrigerators cooking appliances dishwashers mixers and other small household appliances

f

II

I The Nice Classification is a classification of goods and services for the purpose of registering trademarks and service marks based on a multilateral treaty administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization This treaty is called the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks concluded in 1957

Republic of the Philippines

4 It is the true owner of WHIRLPOOL and WHIRLPOOL With Swirl amp Ring Device and owns over 750 WHIRLPOOL marksin over 150 countries in classes 7 9 and 11 the registrations in the US date back to 1955 several years prior to the filing of the Appellants application

5 In the late 1980s Whirlpool Corporation realized that the home appliance industry would become global in scope over time and thus developed and began to execute an aggressive strategy to expand operations worldwide whereby after successfully entering and growing the business in Europe and Latin America it then focused its efforts in Asia

6 In 1992 Whirlpool Overseas Corporation created and began to implement strategy to increase Whirlpool Corporations presence in Asia to which it has been exporting home appliance for many years such that by 1992 it already had sales subsidiaries in Singapore Thailand Australia and Malaysia

7 In 1993 Whirlpool Overseas Corporation set up a regional headquarters office in Singapore with sales marketing finance and manufacturing and technology staffs to oversee activities in Southeast Asia Australia and India

8 The Appellee and Whirlpool Corporation use and advertise WHIRLPOOL marks in numerous internet web sites and own 120 worldwide country code specific domain names that contain the WHIRLPOOL mark owning domain names such as ltwhirlpoolcornraquo cwhirlpoolcorpcomraquo ltwhirlpoo~comphgt ltwhirlpoolcoukraquo ltwhirlpoolappliancescagt laquowhirlpoolcombkraquo cwhirlpoolcozaraquo ltwhirlpoolsegt cwhirlpoolindiacomgt ltwhirlpoolcanadacomgt laquowhirlpooleugt laquowhirlpoolieraquo cwhirlpoolconzgt laquowhirlpoolhrraquo ltwhirlpoolhvaccomgt and ltwhirlpoolatgt among others

9 The Appellee and Whirlpool Corporation manufacture products in 12 countries and market products under 13 principal brand names with Whirlpool Corporation becoming the largest home appliance maker in the world after acquiring Maytag Corporation on 31 March 2006 and the company markets Whirlpool Maytag KitchenAid [enn-Air Amana Inglis Estate Brastemp Bauknecht and other major brand names to consumers in nearly every country around the world

10 Since 1922 the Appellee and Whirlpool Corporation have acquired an immense reputation and goodwill as the WHIRLPOOL marked goods and services are provided and sold extensively throughout the world in more than 170 countries

11 The Appellee and Whirlpool Corporation were the first to use and register in many countries worldwide WHIRLPOOL and WHIRLPOOL With Swirl amp Ring Device in connection with household appliances and related merchandise

12 It owns the WHIRLPOOL family of marks built around the word mark WHIRLPOOL namely WHIRLPOOL WHIRLPOOL With Swirl amp Ring Device and other variations it owns over 950 trademark applications and registrations for the WHIRLPOOL marks around the world including but not limited to the following countries Singapore Australia Bangladesh Brazil Canada China Germany Hong Kong India Indonesia Italy Japan Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Saudi Arabia South Korea Spain Taiwan Thailand UAE UK US and the Philippines in the Philippines it owns 8 registrations in connection with goods and services in Classes 7 9 11 and 37

13 It has extensively used marketed and advertised the WHIRLPOOL marks through its network of licensees distributors and dealers on a worldwide basis including the Philippines

14 It first used WHIRLPOOL and WHIRLPOOL With Swirl amp Ring Device in the US in 1922 and 1981 respectively

15 WHIRLWIND amp DEVICE is confusingly similar to WHIRLPOOL With Swirl amp Ring Device the Appellant incorporates the word WHIRL an important element of the Appellees company name and housemark WHIRLPOOL and a swirl device which is conveniently located also on top of the letter W which is a slavish imitation of the device of the Appellee the Appellant presents its mark by using the first letter W in upper case and the rest of the letters in lowercase the same manner the Appellees mark is presented both the Appellants and Appellees marks are composed of 9 letters and contain 2 syllables

16 The Appellants mark covers electric air cooler in Class 11 while the Appellees mark covers air conditioners in Class 11 and considering that it is in the business of manufacturing home appliances there is a very high possibility that the registration of the Appellants mark will cause confusion

17 The manner in which the word WHIRL and the swirl device are used by the Appellant will lead to confusion of goods and business the word WHIRL and the swirl device which are the dominant features of the Appellees mark closely resemble the Appellants and it is very likely that the public will be confused into thinking that the Appellants mark is associated with or under the sponsorship of the Appellee

18 There is no denying that the Appellant is riding on the goodwill and popularity of the Appellees mark especially since the goods covered are the same and that the Appellant has a boundless choice of words to identify its goods from the Appellee there is no reason why the Appellant would choose WHIRLWIND amp Device for electric air coolers when the same is confusingly similar to WHIRLPOOL With Swirl amp Ring Device

tt [

t

t

III r fII

19 By virtue of the Appellees prior and continued use of the mark for almost 60 years WHIRLPOOL has become well-known and has established goodwill among consumers

20 The identity or the confusing similarity between the competing marks is very likely to deceive the purchasers of goods on which the mark is being used not only to the origin or sponsorship of goods but also as to nature quality characteristics of the goods to which the mark is affixed

21 The registration of the Appellants mark will violate the proprietary rights and interests business reputation and goodwill of the Appellee considering that the same is confusingly similar if not identical to the Appellees WHIRLPOOL With Swirl amp Ring Device a mark that is highly distinctive and over which the Appellee has exclusive use and registration in numerous countries worldwide

22 Because of the Appellees and Whirlpool Corporations aggressive worldwide sales promotions and advertising WHIRLPOOL is not only well-known in the US but in other parts of the world as well

23 It was able to secure numerous decisions from different jurisdictions worldwide acknowledging and declaring its WHIRLPOOL trademarks as well-known

24 Extensive advertising sale and distribution of the Appellees and Whirpool Corporations products bearing the WHIRLPOOL With Swirl amp Ring Device are achieved through the internet the search engine google generated 2520000 hits for the keyword WHIRLPOOL APPLIANCE

25 As a testament to the popularity of WHIRLPOOL and the quality of Whirlpools business and products from the years 2005 to 2008 alone Whirlpool Corporation received numerous awards and recognitions from various countries

26 The Appellee and its affiliate companies have prominently and consistently advertised WHIRPOOL trademarks in numerous print media and publications which include newspapers magazines including but not limited to USA Today Better Homes and Gardens and The Oprah Magazine Unsolicited articles concerning Whirlpool Corporation and its WHIRLPOOL brand and trademarks have appeared in numerous publications that are globally circulating including but not limited to Business Week and Appliance Magazine

27 The Appellee and its affiliate companies have invested substantially in the promotion of its WHIRLPOOL trademarks

~ 28 An independent consulting company periodically conducts valuation of its trademarks and in 2007 WHIRLPOOL has been valued as worth US$ 1 Billion

29 Its main website is wwwwhirlpoolcom wherein orders or purchases for WHIRLPOOL products can be placed

30 The fame and well-known status of WHIRLPOOL marks are likewise attributed to the legal protection obtained by the Appellee for these marks in many countries as well as its efforts at obtaining and maintaining exclusive right to the use and ownership of these marks more information about Whirlpool its products history and other relevant information about their business are available at the websites httpwwwwhirlpoolcom and httpwwwwhirlpoolcorpcom visitors to this website include internet user and customers from all the parts of the world including the Philippines The said website serves as a powerful advertising medium for the WHIRLPOOL trademarks as they are accessible at all times to all customers who patronize WHIRLPOOL branded products

31 In the Philippines WHIRLPOOL and WHIRLPOOL with Swirl amp Ring Device have been registered with the Bureau of Trademarks since 1991 products bearing the marks have been sold and distributed in the Philippines for a number of years home appliance products bearing the mark WHIRLPOOL and WHIRLPOOL With Swirl amp Ring Device have also been widely advertised in the country

32 Whirlpool products are being distributed in the Philippines exclusively by Excellence Appliance Technologies Inc which also serves as an extensive spare parts center for the repair and maintenance of Whirlpool appliances

33 Whirlpool Corporation has been using WHIRLPOOL not only as a trademark but also as a trade name and company name since 1950 and to this day continues to use the same as its business and trade name in most of its business dealings not only in its country of origin or domicile but in most countries around the world where it has business dealings or transactions as a trade name WHIRLPOOL is protected under Sec 165 of the IP Code

The Appellee submitted the following evidence to support its opposition

1 Affidavit of James Darnton executed on 03 October 20082 2 Certificate of Incorporation of the Appellee 3 Copies of trademark registrations (foreign) for the Appelllees marks

4 List of the Appellees trademark and service mark registrations and applications for WHIRLPOOL WHIRLPOOL With Swirl amp Ring Device and other variations

5 Decisions and publications acknowledging the well-known status of WHIRLPOOL6

6 A document entitled Global Shares by Brand

Exhibit A 1 Exhibit B Exhibits C to C-44 Exhibit D

Exhibits E to E-3 and F to F-2 7 Exhibit G 6

I f bull(t

f 7 Distributor Agreement between Whirlpool Southeast Asia Pte and Excellence I

Appliance Technologies Inc [ 1

8 Flyer showing the service centers for WHIRLPOOL in the Philippines

Ii

9 Sample receipts and invoices 10 Advertisements brochures and articles on WHIRLPOOLll 11 Search result from CMT-ONLINE12

12 Affidavit of Amando S Aumento Jr13 13 Annual Reports 14 List of awards and achievements 15 Trademark Registrations (local) for the Appellees marks 16 Printouts from websites selling WHIRPOOL products I 17 Income statements of Exatech Inc18 and 18 Photographs of WHIRLPOOL products

The Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) issued a NOTICE TO ANSWER dated 19 November 2008 directing the Appellant to file an answer within 30 days from receipt thereof The Appellant however did not file an answer On 23 January 2009 the Appellee filed a motion to submit the case for decision Consequently on 16 February 2009 the BLA issued Order No 2009-347 which declared the case deemed submitted for decision On 23 February 2009 the Appellant filed a MANIFESTATION AND MOTION arguing for the motu proprio denial of the opposition on the ground that the opposition was filed beyond the period allowed by the Regulations on Inter Partes Proceedings as amended (Regulations) The BLA issued Order No 2009-439 on 05 March 2009

denying the Appellants motion

On 17 March 2009 the Director promulgated her decision sustaining the opposition She ruled that the competing marks resemble each other in sound appearance and in meaning According to her the dominant element of both marks is the word WHIRL presented identically with the letter w in upper case and the remaining letters in lower case The Director also observed that first the device of the Appellee which is a representation of a swirl and that of the Appellant which is a representation of a tornado appears the same and second the words pool and wind of the Appellee and Appellants marks respectively have complementing definitions when taken in their entirety the word whirl means to move circularly and rapidly in varied and random directions while whirlpool means a rapidly rotating current of water whereas the word whirlwind refers to a rapidly rotating air or tornado dust or water spout The Director also held that the goods covered by the marks of the parties are the same and related not only in classification but likewise in nature purpose and channels of trade and that the Appellees registered marks are well-known

bull Exhibit H I Exhibit I 10 Exhibits I to ]-5 and W to W-8 II Exhibits K to K-20 L to L-13 and Y to Y-lO 12 Exhibit M Exhibits N and N-l Exhibits 0 to 0-3 Exhibit P 16 Exhibits Q to Q-7 17 Exhibits R to R-W S T U U-l and Z to Z-14 I Exhibits V to V-3 Exhibits X to X-3

Dissatisfied the Appellant filed on 02 June 2009 the instant appeal In its APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT-APPELLANT the Appellant asserts that the opposition was filed beyond the period allowed by the Regulations According to the Appellant the Regulations is explicit that the one month period for filing the verified opposition may be extended only for an additional month and that the period of 4 months referred to in the Regulations is intended to cover a situation wherein an unverified opposition was filed The Appellant maintains that the Appellee did not file an unverified notice of opposition and hence the Appellee only has an additional one month to file the verified notice of opposition The Appellant claims that the Appellee should have filed the verified opposition on 02 September 2008 after having been granted an additional period of one month from 02 August 2008 and thus the Appellees filing on 30 October 2008 of the verified opposition was done beyond the period allowed by the Regulations The Appellant also contends that to interpret the Regulations in such a way as to authorize the grant of more than one extension of one month each not exceeding a total of 4 months would render superfluous the provisions of the Regulations on the filing of an unverified notice of opposition Thus the Appellant avers that the Director has no more jurisdiction to render a decision on an opposition that was filed beyond the prescribed period

The Appellee filed on 10 July 2009 its OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM alleging that the opposition was filed on time and the only reason why the Appellant is asserting a contrary position is to call the attention away from the Appellants negligent and fatal failure to file an answer The Appellee maintains that the opposer can file a motion for extension of the period to file a verified opposition and has up to 4 months from the publication of the mark to file a verified opposition The Appellee asserts that the opposer may also file during the first 30 days after the publication an unverified notice of opposition but the verified notice of opposition must be submitted within 2 months from the date of filing of the unverified notice of opposition The Appellee also argues that giving the Appellant 120 days within which to file an answer is an indication that the Appellee is also entitled to a period of 120 days to file a verified notice of opposition According to the Appellee the Appellant is now barred by the equitable principle of laches from questioning the filing of the notice of opposition

This Office noted that the Appellant did not assail the findings of the Director that the competing marks are confusingly similar The Appellant appeals the decision of the Director on the ground that the Director had no jurisdiction over the case because the opposition was allegedly filed out of time As the Appellee correctly pointed out

23this appeal dwells on and reiterates the issue raised in the Manifestation and Motion The merit and substantive legal conclusions in the appealed decision are not questioned and hence are now final and binding as against Appellant

Accordingly the only issue for resolution in this appeal is whether the opposition was filed on time

Sec 134 of Republic Act No 8293 known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IP Code) provides that

~ See OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM dated 10July 2009 page 7

SEC 134 Oppositiongt Any person who believes that he would be damaged by the registration of a mark may upon payment of the required fee and within thirty (30) days after the publication referred to in Subsection 1332 file with the Office an opposition to the application Such opposition shall be in writing and verified by the oppositor or by any person on his behalf who knows the facts and shall specify the grounds on which it is based and include a statement of the facts relied upon Copies of certificates of registration of marks registered in other countries or other supporting documents mentioned in the opposition shall be filed therewith together with the translation in English if not in the English language For good cause shown and upon payment of the required surcharge the time for filing an opposition may be extended by the Director of Legal Mairs who shall notify the applicant of such extension The Regulations shall fix the maximum period of time within which to file the opposition

Corollary Rule 7 Sec 4 ofthe Regulations states that

Section 4 (a) Extension of period for filing the verified opposition- For good cause shown and upon payment of the required surcharge the time for filing the verified opposition may be extended for an additional one (1) month by the Director upon the written request of the opposer Whenever an extension is granted the Director shall cause the applicant to be notified thereof The petition for extension shall be filed in triplicate However in no case shall the period within which to file the verified opposition exceed four (4) months from the date of release of the IPO Gazette publishing the mark being opposed If the last day for filing of the notice of opposition or the verified opposition falls on a Saturday Sunday holiday non-working holiday as may be declared by the President of the Philippines or on a day when the Office or the Bureau is closed for business as may be declared by the Director General the same shall be moved to the immediately following working day

Records show that the Appellee filed motions for extension to file verified opposition which were granted by the BLA For the last extension the BLA issued Order No 2008-1480 on 03 October 2008 giving the Appellee until 02 November 2008 to file the verified opposition The Appellee filed the verified opposition on 30 October 2008 Thus the Appellee was able to file the opposition before the expiry of the maximum period of 120 days counted from the time the Appellants application was published for opposition on 04 July 2008

This Office finds untenable the Appellants contention that Rule 7 Sec 4 of the Regulations is intended to cover a situation where an unverified notice of opposition was filed The rules on the filing of unverified notice of opposition is governed by Rule 7 Sec 2(b) and (d) of the Regulations thus

Section 2 x x x xxx

(b) Notice in case of unverified notice of opposition The Bureau may notify the applicant of the fact of filing of an unverified opposition The applicant after payment of the required fee may request for a copy of the unverified opposition

xxx (d) Dismissal of opposition- The opposition will be dismissed motu propio upon failure of the opposer to verify in person or by any person on his behalf who knows the facts the notice of opposition within two (2) months from date of filing of the unverified opposition

__ A

[i

t

If

Ii(

Ir

I

In this instance the Appellee did not file an unverified opposition What the Appellee did was to file motions for extensions of time to file the opposition which were granted by the BLA The rules on the filing of unverified opposition thus has no application in this case This Office agrees with the Appellee to wit

56 The Inter Partes Rules in providing for a period of a total of four (4) months within which to file the VNO gives the opposer which is mostly foreign-based the chance to gather all relevant evidence and execute all formalities required by law especially since the proceedings is summary in nature and all evidence are required to be submitted with the Verified Notice of Opposition

57 Thus in the Delias case above the Director General added that It must be emphasized that as a general rule the opposition in the required form should be filed within 30 days from the date of the publication of the trademark application for opposition The extensions that may be allowed are precisely to give the opposer ample time and opportunity to submit evidence and other documents that comply or conform to the formalities under the law

58 But if the opposer already has all the supporting documents and can readily file the opposition at any time during the thirty - (30-) (sic) opposer counted from the publication of the TM Application it need not file any motion for extension and can in fact file the opposition even if unverified for as long as within (2) months it can secure the verification and file the verified version of the opposition filed

59 Indeed the two-(2-) month period is deemed sufficient time to cause the verification of the unverified opposition already filed

Moreover the Regulations allow the filing of an answer to the opposition within 120 days (or within 4 months) form receipt of the Notice to Answer This puts the respondent and the opposer on equal footing by giving them the same period of time to present or submit their respective cases positions and evidence

WHEREFORE premises considered the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED Let a copy of this Decision as well as the trademark application and records be furnished and returned to the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs for appropriate action Further let also the Director of the Bureau of Trademarks and the library of the Documentation Information and Technology Transfer Bureau be furnished a copy of this Decision for information guidance and records purposes

SO ORDERED

DEC 22 2009 Makati City

AD

21 OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM dated 10July 2009 pages 14-15 22 See Rule 2 Section 82 of the Regulations

I IIII

1i

1

CASE SUMMARY

Appeal No 14-09-45 Rite-Way Distributors Inc vs Whirlpool Properties Inc IPC No 14-2008-00263 Opposition to Application No 4-2007-010867 Date Filed 28 September 2007 Trademark WHIRLWIND amp DEVICE Hearing Officer Atty Ginalyn Sacmar-Badiola

I

II

I

II

If

1 CASE This is an appeal by Rite-Way Distributors Inc (Appellant) seeking the reversal of Decision No 2009-37 dated 17 March 2009 of the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (Director) which sustained the opposition of Whirlpool Properties Inc (Appellee) to the registration of the Appellants mark WHIRLWIND amp DEVICE

PARTIES The Appellant has business address at 107 D Tuazon St Bgy Lourdes Sta Mesa Heights Quezon City while the Appellee is a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan United States of America with principal office at 500 Renaissance Drive Suite 101 Saint Joseph Michigan 49085 USA

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS

1 On 28 September 2007 the Appellant filed a trademark application for WHIRLWINDDEVICE for electric air cooler which was published on 04 July 2008

2 On 30 October 2008 the Appellee filed an opposition 3

amp

The Bureau of Legal Affairs issued a notice to answer directing the Appellant to file an answer to the opposition

4 The Appellant did not file an answer and the case was deemed submitted for decision 5 On 17 March 2009 the Director rendered Decision No 2009-37

APPEAL PROCEEDINGSSTATUS

1 On 02 June 2009 the Appellant filed an appeal to the Office of the Director General 2 On 09 June 2009 this Office issued an Order giving the Appellee and the Director 30 days from

receipt of the Order to submit comment to the appeal and to forward the records of the case to this Office respectively

3 On 09 July 2009 the Director forwarded the records of the case to this Office 4 On 10 July 2009 the Appellee filed its opposition to the appeal 5 On 15July 2009 this Office gave the parties 15 days from receipt of the Order to submit their

respective memoranda 6 The Appellee and the Appellant filed their memorandum on 29 July 2009 and 04 August 2009

respectively

APPELLANTS ARGUMENTS

1 The opposition was filed beyond the period allowed by the regulations 2 The Director has no jurisdiction to render a decision on an opposition that was filed beyond the

required period

APPELLEES ARGUMENTS

The opposition was filed within the period allowed by the regulations

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED

Whether the opposition was filed on time

I

I I t I ~iP

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PHILIPPINESj


I RITE-WAY DISTRIBUTORS~ INC~

Appellant

I -versus-

IJ

WHIRPOOL PROPERTIES~INC~

Appellee

x-----------------------------------------------x

J IjQ

APPEAL NO 14middotmiddot09-45 IPC No 14-2008-00263 Opposition to

Application No 4-2007-010867 Date Filed 28 September 2007 Trademark WHIRLWIND amp

DEVICE

NOTICE OF DECISION

i

ORBOS CABUSORA amp TAGUIAM Counsel for Appellant U P1it 211 Quadstar Building 01) )10 Ortigas Avenue Greenhills San Juan City

FEDERIS amp ASSOCIATES LAW~JCES Counsel for Appellee i I I

II

2005 88 Corporate Center lIVlNl

141 Valero corner Sedeno Streets 1)5rfJ Salcedo Village Makati City _

t

l~ BUREAU OF LEGAL AFFAIRS Intellectual Property Office

Makati City

j GREETINGS

~ i VC~ j h f - -~---r------ I

J

DIRECTOR rsxv B RAZ Bureau of Trademarks Intellectual Property Office Makati City

IP PHILIPPIN~SLIBRARY ItJk -5(0Documentation Intormation and Technology Transfer Bureau Intellectual Property Office Makati City _



CERTIFIED TRL- f0Pyen

~~ ~rt f) c 1 ~ l l~ )Jl 1~JI~

~(jrncy 1

Very truly yours

2 HANIEL S AREVALO

V YHead Office of Legal Counsel

Republic of the Philippines INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE

I

1

IJ

~iPJ

IIII1



i1





x------------------------------------------x

DECISION






f

II


















tt [

t

t

III r fII























I f bull(t




Ii



















Section 2 x x x xxx



__ A

[i

t

If

Ii(

Ir

I








SO ORDERED


AD


I IIII

1i

1

CASE SUMMARY


I

II

I

II

If






amp








respectively



required period

APPELLEES ARGUMENTS




I

I

1

IJ

~iPJ

IIII1



i1





x------------------------------------------x

DECISION






f

II


















tt [

t

t

III r fII























I f bull(t




Ii



















Section 2 x x x xxx



__ A

[i

t

If

Ii(

Ir

I








SO ORDERED


AD


I IIII

1i

1

CASE SUMMARY


I

II

I

II

If






amp








respectively



required period

APPELLEES ARGUMENTS




I
















tt [

t

t

III r fII























I f bull(t




Ii



















Section 2 x x x xxx



__ A

[i

t

If

Ii(

Ir

I








SO ORDERED


AD


I IIII

1i

1

CASE SUMMARY


I

II

I

II

If






amp








respectively



required period

APPELLEES ARGUMENTS




I













I f bull(t




Ii



















Section 2 x x x xxx



__ A

[i

t

If

Ii(

Ir

I








SO ORDERED


AD


I IIII

1i

1

CASE SUMMARY


I

II

I

II

If






amp








respectively



required period

APPELLEES ARGUMENTS




I













Section 2 x x x xxx



__ A

[i

t

If

Ii(

Ir

I








SO ORDERED


AD


I IIII

1i

1

CASE SUMMARY


I

II

I

II

If






amp








respectively



required period

APPELLEES ARGUMENTS




I

[i

t

If

Ii(

Ir

I








SO ORDERED


AD


I IIII

1i

1

CASE SUMMARY


I

II

I

II

If






amp








respectively



required period

APPELLEES ARGUMENTS




I

I IIII

1i

1

CASE SUMMARY


I

II

I

II

If






amp








respectively



required period

APPELLEES ARGUMENTS




I

PHILIPPINES OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL Appellant, IPC...

Documents

Transcript of PHILIPPINES OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL Appellant, IPC...