MANG INASAL PHILIPPINES, INC.

 v. IFP MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 221717, June 19, 2017

Mang Inasal Mark OK Hotdog Inasal Mark

 MANG INASAL PHILIPPINES, INC. v. IFP MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION

G.R. No. 221717, June 19, 2017

FACTS
IFP Manufacturing Corporation (IFP) is a local manufacturer of snacks and beverages.
On May 26, 2011, IFP filed with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) an application 3 for the registration of the mark "OK
Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark" (OK Hotdog Inasal mark) in connection with goods under Class 30 of the
Nice Classification. The said mark, which respondent intends to use on one of its curl snack products.

The application of respondent was opposed 5 by Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc.
Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. (Mang Inasal) is a domestic fast food company and the owner of the mark "Mang Inasal,
Home of Real Pinoy Style Barbeque and Device" Mang Inasal mark) for services under Class 43 of the Nice
Classification.6 The said mark, which was registered with the IPO in 2006 7 and had been used by petitioner for its chain of
restaurants since 2003.

Mang Inasal arguingthat it is prohibited under Section 123.1(d)(iii) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8293. 
Mang Inasal averred that their marks share similarities—both as to their appearance and as to the goods or services that
they represent—which tend to suggest a false connection or association between the said marks and, in that regard,
would likely cause confusion on the part of the public. 10 

Mang Inasal explained:

1. The OK Hotdog Inasal mark is similar to the Mang Inasal mark. Both marks feature the same dominant element
—i.e., the word "INASAL"—printed and stylized in the exact same manner, viz:
a. In both marks, the word "INASAL" is spelled using the same font style and red color;
b. In both marks, the word "INASAL" is placed inside the same black outline and yellow background; and
c. In both marks, the word "INASAL" is arranged in the same staggered format.

2. The goods that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is intended to identify (i.e., curl snack products) are also closely
related to the services represented by the Mang Inasal mark (i.e., fast food restaurants). Both marks
cover inasal  or inasal-flavored  food products.

Decisions of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the IPO

The IPO-BLA issued a Decision  dismissing petitioner's opposition. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the Decision of IPO-BLA to the Director General (DG) of the IPO. 12
The IPO-DG rendered a Decision13 dismissing the appeal of petitioner. 

Both the IPO-BLA and the IPO-DG were not convinced that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is confusingly similar to the Mang
Inasal mark. They rebuffed petitioner's contention, thusly:
The OK Hotdog Inasal mark is not similar to the Mang Inasal mark. In terms of appearance, the only similarity
between the two marks is the word "INASAL." However, there are other words like "OK,"
"HOTDOG," and "CHEESE" and images like that of curls and cheese that are found in the OK Hotdog Inasal mark
but are not present in the Mang Inasal mark. 14

In addition, petitioner cannot prevent the application of the word "INASAL" in the OK Hotdog Inasal mark. No
 person or entity can claim exclusive right to use the word "INASAL" because it is merely a generic or descriptive
word that means barbeque or barbeque products. 15

Neither can the underlying goods and services of the two marks be considered as closely related. The products
represented by the two marks are not competitive and are sold in different channels of trade. The curl snack
products of the OK Hotdog Inasal mark are sold in sari-sari stores, grocery stores and other small distributor
outlets, whereas the food products associated with the Mang Inasal mark are sold in petitioner's restaurants. 16

Undeterred, petitioner appealed to the CA which was denied.

Hence, the instant appeal.

ISSUE
Whether or not the registration of respondent's OK Hotdog Inasal mark is prohibited under Section 123.l (d) (iii) of
Republic Act No. (RA) 8293

HELD:
Yes. The OK Hotdog Inasal mark meets the two conditions of the proscription under Sec. 123.l(d)(iii) of RA 8293. First, it
is similar to the Mang Inasal mark, an earlier mark. Second, it pertains to goods that are related to the services
represented by such earlier mark.

The Proscription: Sec. 123.1 (d)(iii) of RA 8293

A mark that is similar to a registered mark or a mark with an earlier filing or priority date (earlier mark) and which is
likely to cause confusion on the part of the public cannot be registered with the IPO. Such is the import of Sec. 123.1(d)
(iii) of RA 8293:
SECTION 123. Registrability.  –
123. 1. A mark cannot be registered if it:
xxxx
d. x x x:
xxx
xxx
...nearly resembles [a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a mark with an earlier filing or
priority date] as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

The concept of confusion, which is at the heart of the proscription, could either refer to  confusion of goods  or confusion
of business.
(1) confusion of goods (product confusion), where the ordinarily prudent purchaser would be induced to
purchase one product in the belief that he was purchasing the other; and
(2) confusion of business (source or origin confusion), where, although the goods of the parties are different,
the product, the mark of which registration is applied for by one party, is such as might reasonably be assumed
to originate with the registrant of an earlier product, and the public would then be deceived either into that
belief or into the belief that there is some connection between the two parties, though inexistent.

Confusion, in either of its forms, is, thus, only possible when the goods or services covered by allegedly similar marks are
identical, similar or re1ated in some manner. 20

Verily, to fall under the ambit of Sec. 123.1(d)(iii) and be regarded as likely to deceive or cause confusion upon the
purchasing public, a prospective mark must be shown to meet two (2) minimum conditions:
1. The prospective mark must nearly resemble or be similar to an earlier mark; and
2. The prospective mark must pertain to goods or services that are either identical, similar or related to the
goods or services represented by the earlier mark.
The OK Hotdog Inasal mark meets the two conditions of the proscription under Sec. 123.1(d)(iii) ofRA 8293.  First, it is
similar to the Mang Inasal mark, an earlier mark Second, it pertains to goods that are related to the services represented
by such earlier mark Petitioner was, therefore, correct; and the IPO-BLA, IPO-DG, and the CA's rulings must be reversed.
The OK Hotdog Inasal mark is not entitled to be registered as its use will likely deceive or cause confusion on the part of
the public and, thus, also likely to infringe the Mang Inasal mark The law, in instances such as this, must come to the
succor of the owner of the earlier mark.
 G.R. No. 221717, June 19, 2017 the Mang Inasal mark share similarities—both
as to their appearance and as to the goods or
MANG INASAL PHILIPPINES, INC. v. IFP services that they represent—which tend to
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION suggest a false connection or association
between the said marks and, in that regard,
DECISION would likely cause confusion on the part of the
public.10 As petitioner explained:
VELASCO JR., J.:
1. The OK Hotdog Inasal mark is similar to
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari the Mang Inasal mark. Both marks
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the feature the same dominant element—
Resolutions dated June 10, 20151 and i.e., the word "INASAL"—printed and
2
December 2, 2015  of the Court of Appeals stylized in the exact same manner, viz:
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 139020.
a. In both marks, the
The Facts word "INASAL" is spelled using
the same font style and red
The Trademark Application and the color;
Opposition
b. In both marks, the
Respondent IFP Manufacturing Corporation is a word "INASAL" is placed inside
local manufacturer of snacks and beverages. the same black outline and yellow
background; and
On May 26, 2011, respondent filed with the
Intellectual Property Office (IPO) an c. In both marks, the
word "INASAL" is arranged in the
application3 for the registration of the mark
"OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor same staggered format.
2. The goods that the OK Hotdog Inasal
Mark" (OK Hotdog Inasal mark) in connection
with goods under Class 30 of the Nice mark is intended to identify (i.e., curl
snack products) are also closely related
Classification.4 The said mark, which
respondent intends to use on one of its curl to the services represented by the Mang
Inasal mark (i.e., fast food restaurants).
snack products, appears as follows:
Both marks cover inasal or inasal-
(See Image) flavored food products.

The application of respondent was opposed5 by

petitioner Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. Petitioner's opposition was referred to the
Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the IPO for
Petitioner is a domestic fast food company and hearing and disposition.
the owner of the mark "Mang Inasal, Home
of Real Pinoy Style Barbeque and Decisions of the IPO-BLA and the IPO-DG
Device" Mang Inasal mark) for services under
Class 43 of the Nice Classification. 6 The said On September 19, 2013, after due
mark, which was registered with the IPO in proceedings, the IPO-BLA issued a
20067 and had been used by petitioner for its Decision11 dismissing petitioner's opposition.
chain of restaurants since 2003,8 consists of The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
the following insignia:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
(See Image) instant opposition is hereby DISMISSED. Let
the filewrapper [sic] of Trademark Application
Petitioner, in its opposition, contended that the Serial No. 4-2011-006098 be returned,
registration of respondent's OK Hotdog Inasal together with a copy of this Decision, to the
mark is prohibited under Section 123.1(d)(iii) Bureau of Trademarks for further information
of Republic Act No. (RA) 8293.9 Petitioner and appropriate action.
averred that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark and
 channels of trade. The curl snack
SO ORDERED. products of the OK Hotdog Inasal mark
are sold in sari-sari stores, grocery
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the Decision of stores and other small distributor
IPO-BLA to the Director General (DG) of the outlets, whereas the food products
IPO.12 associated with the Mang Inasal mark
are sold in petitioner's restaurants.16
On December 15, 2014, the IPO-DG rendered
a Decision13 dismissing the appeal of Undeterred, petitioner appealed to the
petitioner. The fallo of the Decision accordingly CA.
reads:
Resolutions of the CA and the Instant
Wherefore, premises considered, the appeal is Appeal
hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this Decision
be furnished to the Director ofBureau ofLegal
Affairs and the Director of Bureau of On June 10, 2015, the CA issued a
Trademarks for their appropriate action and Resolution17 denying the appeal of petitioner.
information. Further, let a copy of this Decision Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration,
be furnished to the library ofthe but this too was denied by the CA through its
Documentation, Information and Technology Resolution18 dated December 2, 2015. The CA,
Transfer Bureau for records purposes. in its Resolutions, simply agreed with the
ratiocinations of the IPO-BLA and IPO-DG.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, the instant appeal.
Both the IPO-BLA and the IPO-DG were not Here, petitioner prays for the reversal of the
convinced that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is CA Resolutions. Petitioner maintains that the
confusingly similar to the Mang Inasal mark. OK Hotdog Inasal mark is confusingly similar to
They rebuffed petitioner's contention, thusly: the Mang Inasal mark and insists that the
trademark application of respondent ought to
1. The OK Hotdog Inasal mark is not be denied for that reason.
similar to the Mang Inasal mark. In
terms of appearance, the only similarity Our Ruling
between the two marks is the
word "INASAL." However, there are
other words like "OK," We have examined the OK Hotdog Inasal and
"HOTDOG," and "CHEESE" and images Mang Inasal marks under the lens of pertinent
like that of curls and cheese that are law and jurisprudence. And, through it, we
found in the OK Hotdog Inasal mark but have determined the justness of petitioner's
are not present in the Mang Inasal claim. By our legal and jurisprudential
mark.14 standards, the respondent's OK Hotdog Inasal
mark is, indeed, likely to cause deception or
In addition, petitioner cannot prevent confusion on the part of the public. Hence,
the application of the word "INASAL" in contrary to what the IPO-BLA, IPO-DG, and the
the OK Hotdog Inasal mark. No person CA had ruled, the respondent's application
or entity can claim exclusive right to use should have been denied.
the word "INASAL" because it is merely
a generic or descriptive word that We, therefore, grant the appeal.
means barbeque or barbeque
products.15 I

2. Neither can the underlying goods and The Proscription: Sec. 123.1 (d)(iii) of RA
services of the two marks be considered 8293
as closely related. The products
represented by the two marks are not
competitive and are sold in different A mark that is similar to a registered mark or a
mark with an earlier filing or priority date (iii) and be regarded as likely to deceive or
(earlier mark) and which is likely to cause cause confusion upon the purchasing public, a
confusion on the part of the public cannot be prospective mark must be shown to meet two
registered with the IPO. Such is the import of (2) minimum conditions:
Sec. 123.1(d)(iii) of RA 8293:
1. The prospective mark must nearly
SECTION 123. Registrability. - resemble or be similar to an earlier
mark; and
123. 1. A mark cannot be registered if it:
2. The prospective mark must pertain to
x x x x goods or services that are either
identical, similar or related to the goods
d. x x x: or services represented by the earlier
mark.
i. xxx
ii. xxx
iii. ...nearly resembles [a
registered mark belonging The rulings of the IPO-BLA, IPO-DG, and the
to a different proprietor or CA all rest on the notion that the OK Hotdog
a mark with an earlier Inasal mark does not fulfill both conditions and
filing or priority date] as to so may be granted registration.
be likely to deceive or
cause confusion. We disagree.

II
The concept of confusion, which is at the heart
of the proscription, could either refer The OK Hotdog Inasal Mark Is Similar to
to confusion of goods  or confusion of the Mang Inasal Mark
business.  In Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.
Trendworks International Corporation,19 we
discussed and differentiated both types of The first condition of the proscription requires
confusion, as follows: resemblance or similarity between a
prospective mark and an earlier mark
Relative to the question on confusion of marks Similarity does not mean absolute identity of
and trade names, jurisprudence has noted two marks.21 To be regarded as similar to an earlier
(2) types of confusion, viz.: (1) confusion of mark, it is enough that a prospective mark be
goods (product confusion), where the a colorable imitation of the former.22 Colorable
ordinarily prudent purchaser would be induced imitation denotes such likeness in form,
to purchase one product in the belief that he content, words, sound, meaning, special
was purchasing the other; and (2) confusion of arrangement or general appearance of one
business (source or origin confusion), where, mark with respect to another as would likely
although the goods of the parties are different, mislead an average buyer in the ordinary
the product, the mark of which registration is course of purchase.23
applied for by one party, is such as might
reasonably be assumed to originate with the In determining whether there is similarity or
registrant of an earlier product, and the public colorable imitation between two marks,
would then be deceived either into that belief authorities employ either the dominancy
or into the belief that there is some connection test  or the holistic test.24 In Mighty
between the two parties, though inexistent. Corporation v. E. & J. Gallo Winery,25 we
distinguished between the two tests as follows:
Confusion, in either of its forms, is, thus, only
The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity
possible when the goods or services covered
of the prevalent features of the competing
by allegedly similar marks are identical, similar
trademarks which might cause confusion or
or re1ated in some manner.20
deception, and thus infringement. If the
competing trademark contains the main,
Verily, to fall under the ambit of Sec. 123.1(d)
essential or dominant features of another, most distinctive and recognizable
and confusion or deception is likely to feature of the said mark.
result, infringement takes
place. Duplication or imitation is not 3. The dominant element "INASAL," as
necessary; nor is it necessary that the stylized in the Mang Inasal mark, is
infringing label should suggest an effort to different from the term "inasaf' per
imitate. The question is whether the use of the se.  The term "inasal" per se is a
marks involved is likely to cause confusion or descriptive term that cannot be
mistake in the mind of the public or deceive appropriated. However, the
purchasers. dominant element "INASAL," as
stylized in the Mang Inasal mark, is
On the other hand, the Holistic Test requires not. Petitioner, as the registered
that the entirety of the marks in question be owner of the Mang Inasal mark, can
considered in resolving confusing similarity. claim exclusive use of such element.
Comparison of words is not the only
determining factor. The trademarks in their 4. The respondent's OK Hotdog Inasal
entirety as they appear in their respective mark, on the other hand, has three (3)
labels or hang tags must also be considered in dominant features: (a) the
relation to the goods to which they are word "INASAL" written in a bold red
attached. The discerning eye of the observer typeface against a black and yellow
must focus not only on the predominant words outline with staggered design; (b) the
but also on the other features appearing in word "HOTDOG"  written in green
both labels in order that he may draw his colored font; and (c) a picture of three
conclusion whether one is confusingly similar pieces of curls. Though there are other
to the other. (citations omitted and emphasis observable elements in the mark—such
supplied) as the word "OK"  written in red colored
font at the upper left side of the mark,
the small red banner overlaying the
There are currently no fixed rules as to which
picture of the curls with the
of the two tests can be applied in any given
words "CHEESE HOTDOG
case.26 However, recent case law on trademark
FLAVOR"  written on it, and the image of
seems to indicate an overwhelming judicial
a block of cheese beside the picture of
preference towards applying the dominancy
the curls—none of those are as
test.27 We conform.
prevalent as the two features
aforementioned.
Our examination of the marks in controversy
yielded the following findings:
5. The dominant element "INASAL" in
the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is
1. The petitioner's Mang Inasal mark has a exactly the same as the dominant
single dominant feature—the element "NASAL" in the Mang
word "INASAL" written in a bold red Inasal mark. Both elements in both
typeface against a black outline and marks are printed using the exact
yellow background with staggered same red colored font, against the
design. The other perceptible elements exact same black outline and yellow
of the mark—such as the background and is arranged in the
word "MANG" written in black colored exact same staggered format.
font at the upper left side of the mark
and the phrase "HOME OF REAL PINOY 6. Apart from the element "INASAL," there
STYLE BARBEQUE"  written in a black appear no other perceivable similarities
colored stylized font at the lower portion between the two marks.
of the mark—are not as visually
outstanding as the mentioned feature.

2. Being the sole dominant element,

Given the foregoing premises, and applying the
the word "INASAL," as stylized in
dominancy test, we hold that the OK Hotdog
the Mang Inasal mark, is also the
Inasal mark is a colorable imitation of the
Mang Inasal mark. for which the registration of the OK Hotdog
Inasal mark is sought cannot be considered as
First. The fact that the conflicting marks have identical or similar to the restaurant services
exactly the same dominant element is key. It represented by the Mang Inasal mark, there is
is undisputed that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark ample reason to conclude that the said product
copied and adopted as one of its dominant and services may nonetheless be regarded
features the "INASAL" element of the Mang as related to each other.
Inasal mark. Given that the "INASAL" element
is, at the same time, the dominant and most Related goods and services are those that,
distinctive feature of the Mang Inasal mark, though non-identical or non-similar, are so
the said element's incorporation in the OK logically connected to each other that they
Hotdog Inasal mark, thus, has the potential to may reasonably be assumed to originate from
project the deceptive and false impression that one manufacturer or from economically-linked
the latter mark is somehow linked or manufacturers.28 In determining whether goods
associated with the former mark. or services are related, several factors may be
considered. Some of those factors recognized
Second. The differences between the two in our jurisprudence are:29
marks are trumped by the
1. the business (and its location) to which
overall impression created by their similarity. the goods belong;
The mere fact that there are other elements in
the OK Hotdog Inasal mark that are not 2. the class of product to which the goods
present in the Mang Inasal mark actually does belong;
little to change the probable public perception
that both marks are linked or associated. It is 3. the product's quality, quantity, or size,
worth reiterating that the OK Hotdog Inasal including the nature of the package,
mark actually brandishes a literal copy of the wrapper or container;
most recognizable feature of the Mang Inasal
mark. We doubt that an average buyer 4. the nature and cost of the articles;
catching a casual glimpse of the OK Hotdog
Inasal mark would pay more attention to the 5. the descriptive properties, physical
peripheral details of the said mark than it attributes or essential characteristics
would to the mark's more prominent feature, with reference to their form,
especially when the same invokes the composition, texture or quality;
distinctive feature of another more popular
brand. 6. the purpose of the goods;

All in all, we find that the OK Hotdog Inasal 7. whether the article is bought for
mark is similar to the Mang Inasal mark. immediate consumption, that is, day-to-
day household items;
III
8. the fields of manufacture;
The Goods for which the Registration of
the 9. the conditions under which the article is
OK Hotdog Inasal Mark Is Sought Are usually purchased, and
Related to the
Services Being Represented by the Mang 10.the channels of trade through which the
Inasal Mark goods flow, how they are distributed,
marketed, displayed and sold.

The second condition of the proscription

requires that the prospective mark pertain to
goods or services that are either identical, Relative to the consideration of the foregoing
similar or related to the goods or services factors, however, Mighty
represented by the earlier mark. While there Corporation30 significantly imparted:
can be no quibble that the curl snack product
The wisdom of this approach is its recognition curls sought to be marketed by the
that each trademark infringement case respondent, thus:
presents its own unique set of facts. No single
factor is preeminent, nor can the presence or First. Petitioner uses the Mang Inasal mark in
absence of one determine, without analysis of connection with its restaurant services that is
the others, the outcome of an infringement particularly known for its chicken inasal, i.e.,
suit. Rather, the court is required to sift the grilled chicken doused in a
evidence relevant to each of the criteria. This special inasal marinade.31 The inasal  marinade
requires that the entire panoply of elements is different from the typical barbeque marinade
constituting the relevant factual landscape be and it is what gives the chicken inasal its
comprehensively examined. It is a weighing unique taste and distinct orange
and balancing process. With reference to this color.32Inasal refers to the manner of grilling
ultimate question, and from a balancing of the meat products using an inasal marinade.
determinations reached on all of the factors, a
conclusion is reached whether the parties have Second. The Mang Inasal mark has been used
a right to the relief sought. for petitioner's restaurant business since 2003.
The restaurant started in Iloilo but has since
A very important circumstance though is expanded its business throughout the country.
whether there exists a likelihood that an Currently, the Mang Inasal chain of restaurants
appreciable number of ordinarily prudent has a total of 464 branches scattered
purchasers will be misled, or simply throughout the nation's three major
confused, as to the source of the goods in islands.33 It is, thus, fair to say that a sizeable
question. The "purchaser" is not the portion of the population is knowledgeable of
"completely unwary consumer" but is the the Mang Inasal mark.
"ordinarily intelligent buyer" considering the
type of product involved he is accustomed to Third. Respondent, on the other hand, seeks to
buy, and therefore to some extent familiar market under the OK Hotdog Inasal mark curl
with, the goods in question. The test of snack products which it publicizes as having a
fraudulent simulation is to be found in the cheese hotdog inasal  flavor.34
likelihood of the deception of some persons in
some measure acquainted with an established Accordingly, it is the fact that the underlying
design and desirous of purchasing the goods and services of both marks deal
commodity with which that design has been with inasal and inasal-flavored products which
associated. The test is not found in the ultimately fixes the relations between such
deception, or the possibility of deception, of goods and services. Given the foregoing
the person who knows nothing about the circumstances and the aforesaid similarity
design which has been counterfeited, and who between the marks in controversy, we are
must be indifferent between that and the convinced that an average buyer who comes
other. The simulation, in order to be across the curls marketed under the OK
objectionable, must be such as appears Hotdog Inasal mark is likely to be confused as
likely to mislead the ordinary intelligent to the true source of such curls. To our mind, it
buyer who has a need to supply and is is not unlikely that such buyer would be led
familiar with the article that he seeks to into the assumption that the curls are of
purchase. (citations omitted and emphasis petitioner and that the latter has ventured into
supplied) snack manufacturing or, if not, that the
petitioner has supplied the flavorings for
Mindful of the foregoing precepts, we hold that respondent's product. Either way, the
the curl snack product for which the reputation of petitioner would be taken
registration of the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is advantage of and placed at the mercy of
sought is related to the restaurant services respondent.
represented by the Mang Inasal mark, in such
a way that may lead to a confusion of All in all, we find that the goods for which the
business. In holding so, we took into account registration of the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is
the specific kind of restaurant business that sought are related to the services being
petitioner is engaged in, the reputation of the represented by the Mang Inasal mark.
petitioner's mark, and the particular type of
IV

Conclusion

The OK Hotdog Inasal mark meets the two

conditions of the proscription under Sec.
123.1(d)(iii) ofRA 8293. First, it is similar to
the Mang Inasal mark, an earlier
mark Second, it pertains to goods that are
related to the services represented by such
earlier mark Petitioner was, therefore, correct;
and the IPO-BLA, IPO-DG, and the CA's rulings
must be reversed. The OK Hotdog Inasal mark
is not entitled to be registered as its use will
likely deceive or cause confusion on the part of
the public and, thus, also likely to infringe the
Mang Inasal mark The law, in instances such
as this, must come to the succor of the owner
of the earlier mark.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

petition is hereby GRANTED. We hereby
render a decision as follows:

1. REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the
Resolutions dated June 10, 2015 and
December 2, 2015 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 139020;

2. SETTING ASIDE the Decision dated

December 15, 2014 of the Director
General of the Intellectual Property
Office in Appeal No. 14-2013-0052;

3. SETTING ASIDE the Decision dated

September 19, 2013 of the Director of
the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the
Intellectual Property Office in IPC No.
14-2012-00369; and

4. DIRECTING the incumbent Director

General and Director of the Bureau of
Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property
Office to DENY respondent's Application
No. 4-2011-006098 for the registration
of the mark "OK Hotdog Inasal
Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark."

SO ORDERED.

Bersamin, Reyes, Jardeleza, and Tijam,

JJ., concur.