You are on page 1of 8

G.R. No.

183404 October 13, 2010


BERRIS AGRICULTURAL CO., INC., Petitioner,
vs.
NORVY ABYADANG, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
NACURA, J.:
This petition for review
1
on certiorari under Rule ! of the Rules of Court see"s the reversal of
the Decision dated #pril 1, $%%&
$
and the Resolution dated 'une 1&, $%%&
(
of the Court of
#ppeals )C#* in C#+,.R. SP No. ---$&.
The antecedents.
On 'anuar/ 10, $%%, respondent Norv/ #. #1/adan2 )#1/adan2*, proprietor of NS Northern
Or2anic 3ertili4er, with address at No. ( 5ower 67, 8a2uio Cit/, filed with the Intellectual
Propert/ Office )IPO* a trade9ar" application for the 9ar" :NS D+1% P5;S: for use in
connection with 3un2icide )Class !* with active in2redient &%< 7anco4e1. The application,
under #pplication Serial No. +$%%+%%!%, was 2iven due course and was pu1lished in the IPO
e+,a4ette for opposition on 'ul/ $&, $%%!.
On #u2ust 1=, $%%!, petitioner 8erris #2ricultural Co., Inc. )8erris*, with 1usiness address in
8aran2a/ 7asiit, Calauan, 5a2una, filed with the IPO 8ureau of 5e2al #ffairs )IPO+85#* a
>erified Notice of Opposition

a2ainst the 9ar" under application alle2edl/ 1ecause :NS D+1%


P5;S: is si9ilar and?or confusin2l/ si9ilar to its re2istered trade9ar" :D+1% &% @P,: also used
for 3un2icide )Class !* with active in2redient &%< 7anco4e1. The opposition was doc"eted as
IPC No. 1+$%%!+%%%--.
#fter an eAchan2e of pleadin2s, on #pril $&, $%%0, Director Estrellita 8eltran+#1elardo )Director
#1elardo* of the IPO+85# issued Decision No. $%%0+$
!
)85# decision*, the dispositive portion
of which reads.
@BERE3ORE, viewed in the li2ht of all the fore2oin2, this 8ureau finds and so holds that
Respondent+#pplicantCs 9ar" :NS D+1% P5;S: is confusin2l/ si9ilar to the OpposerCs 9ar"
and as such, the opposition is here1/ S;ST#INED. ConseDuentl/, trade9ar" application 1earin2
Serial No. +$%%+%%!% for the 9ar" :NS D+1% P5;S: filed on 'anuar/ 10, $%% 1/ Norv/ #.
#1E/adaFn2 coverin2 the 2oods fun2icide under Class ! of the International Classification of
2oods is, as it is here1/, RE'ECTED.
5et the filewrapper of the trade9ar" :NS D+1% P5;S: su1Gect 9atter under consideration 1e
forwarded to the #d9inistrative, 3inancial and Bu9an Resources Develop9ent Services 8ureau
)#3BRDS8* for appropriate action in accordance with this Order with a cop/ to 1e furnished the
8ureau of Trade9ar" )8OT* for infor9ation and to update its records.
SO ORDERED.
0
#1/adan2 filed a 9otion for reconsideration, and 8erris, in turn, filed its opposition to the
9otion.
On #u2ust $, $%%0, Director #1elardo issued Resolution No. $%%0+%-)D*
=
)85# resolution*,
den/in2 the 9otion for reconsideration and disposin2 as follows .
IN >IE@ O3 TBE 3ORE,OIN,, the 7otion for Reconsideration filed 1/ the Respondent+
#pplicant is here1/ DENIED 3OR 5#CH O3 7ERIT. ConseDuentl/, Decision No. $%%0+$
dated #pril $&, $%%0 ST#NDS.
5et the filewrapper of the trade9ar" :NS D+1% P5;S: su1Gect 9atter under consideration 1e
forwarded to the 8ureau of Trade9ar"s for appropriate action in accordance with this
Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
&
#22rieved, #1/adan2 filed an appeal on #u2ust $$, $%%0 with the Office of the Director
,eneral, Intellectual Propert/ Philippines )IPPD,*, doc"eted as #ppeal No. 1+%0+1(.
@ith the filin2 of the partiesC respective 9e9oranda, Director ,eneral #drian S. Cristo1al, 'r. of
the IPPD, rendered a decision dated 'ul/ $%, $%%=,
-
rulin2 as follows.
@herefore, pre9ises consideredE,F the appeal is here1/ DENIED. #ccordin2l/, the appealed
Decision of the Director is here1/ #33IR7ED.
5et a cop/ of this Decision as well as the trade9ar" application and records 1e furnished and
returned to the Director of 8ureau of 5e2al #ffairs for appropriate action. 3urther, let also the
Directors of the 8ureau of Trade9ar"s, the #d9inistrative, 3inancial and Bu9an Resources
Develop9ent Services 8ureau, and the li1rar/ of the Docu9entation, Infor9ation and
Technolo2/ Transfer 8ureau 1e furnished a cop/ of this Decision for infor9ation, 2uidance, and
records purposes.
SO ORDERED.
1%
;ndeterred, #1/adan2 filed a petition for review
11
1efore the C#.
In its Decision dated #pril 1, $%%&, the C# reversed the IPPD, decision. It held.
In su9, the petition should 1e 2ranted due to the followin2 reasonsI 1* petitionerCs 9ar" :NS D+
1% P5;S: is not confusin2l/ si9ilar with respondentCs trade9ar" :D+1% &% @P:J $* respondent
failed to esta1lish its ownership of the 9ar" :D+1% &% @P: and (* respondentCs trade9ar"
re2istration for :D+1% &% @P: 9a/ 1e cancelled in the present case to avoid 9ultiplicit/ of suits.
@BERE3ORE, the petition is ,R#NTED. The decision dated 'ul/ $%, $%%= of the IPO Director
,eneral in #ppeal No. 1+%0+1( )IPC No. 1+$%%!+%%%--* is RE>ERSED and SET #SIDE, and
a new one is entered 2ivin2 due course to petitionerCs application for re2istration of the 9ar"
:NS D+1% P5;S,: and cancelin2 respondentCs trade9ar" re2istration for :D+1% &% @P.:
SO ORDERED.
1$
8erris filed a 7otion for Reconsideration, 1ut in its 'une 1&, $%%& Resolution, the C# denied the
9otion for lac" of 9erit. Bence, this petition anchored on the followin2 ar2u9ents.
I. The Bonora1le Court of #ppealsC findin2 that there eAists no confusin2 si9ilarit/ 1etween
PetitionerCs and respondentCs 9ar"s is 1ased on 9isapprehension of facts, sur9ise and conGecture
and not in accord with the Intellectual Propert/ Code and applica1le Decisions of this Bonora1le
Court ESupre9e CourtF.
II. The Bonora1le Court of #ppealsC Decision reversin2 and settin2 aside the technical findin2s
of the Intellectual Propert/ Office even without a findin2 or, at the ver/ least, an alle2ation of
2rave a1use of discretion on the part of said a2enc/ is not in accord with law and earlier
pronounce9ents of this Bonora1le Court ESupre9e CourtF.
III. The Bonora1le Court of #ppealsC Decision orderin2 the cancellation of herein PetitionerCs
dul/ re2istered and validl/ eAistin2 trade9ar" in the a1sence of a properl/ filed Petition for
Cancellation 1efore the Intellectual Propert/ Office is not in accord with the Intellectual Propert/
Code and applica1le Decisions of this Bonora1le Court ESupre9e CourtF.
1(
The 1asic law on trade9ar", infrin2e9ent, and unfair co9petition is Repu1lic #ct )R.#.* No.
&$-(
1
)Intellectual Propert/ Code of the Philippines*, specificall/ Sections 1$1 to 1=% thereof. It
too" effect on 'anuar/ 1, 1--&. Prior to its effectivit/, the applica1le law was R.#. No. 100,
1!
as
a9ended.
Interestin2l/, R.#. No. &$-( did not eApressl/ repeal in its entiret/ R.#. No. 100, 1ut 9erel/
provided in Section $(-.1
10
that #cts and parts of #cts inconsistent with it were repealed. In
other words, onl/ in the instances where a su1stantial and irreconcila1le conflict is found
1etween the provisions of R.#. No. &$-( and of R.#. No. 100 would the provisions of the latter
1e dee9ed repealed.
R.#. No. &$-( defines a :9ar": as an/ visi1le si2n capa1le of distin2uishin2 the 2oods
)trade9ar"* or services )service 9ar"* of an enterprise and shall include a sta9ped or 9ar"ed
container of 2oods.
1=
It also defines a :collective 9ar": as an/ visi1le si2n desi2nated as such in
the application for re2istration and capa1le of distin2uishin2 the ori2in or an/ other co99on
characteristic, includin2 the Dualit/ of 2oods or services of different enterprises which use the
si2n under the control of the re2istered owner of the collective 9ar".
1&

On the other hand, R.#. No. 100 defines a :trade9ar": as an/ distinctive word, na9e, s/91ol,
e91le9, si2n, or device, or an/ co91ination thereof, adopted and used 1/ a 9anufacturer or
9erchant on his 2oods to identif/ and distin2uish the9 fro9 those 9anufactured, sold, or dealt
1/ another.
1-
# trade9ar", 1ein2 a special propert/, is afforded protection 1/ law. 8ut for one to
enGo/ this le2al protection, le2al protection ownership of the trade9ar" should ri2htl/ 1e
esta1lished.
The ownership of a trade9ar" is acDuired 1/ its re2istration and its actual use 1/ the
9anufacturer or distri1utor of the 2oods 9ade availa1le to the purchasin2 pu1lic. Section 1$$
$%

of R.#. No. &$-( provides that the ri2hts in a 9ar" shall 1e acDuired 1/ 9eans of its valid
re2istration with the IPO. # certificate of re2istration of a 9ar", once issued, constitutes pri9a
facie evidence of the validit/ of the re2istration, of the re2istrantCs ownership of the 9ar", and of
the re2istrantCs eAclusive ri2ht to use the sa9e in connection with the 2oods or services and those
that are related thereto specified in the certificate.
$1
R.#. No. &$-(, however, reDuires the
applicant for re2istration or the re2istrant to file a declaration of actual use )D#;* of the 9ar",
with evidence to that effect, within three )(* /ears fro9 the filin2 of the application for
re2istrationJ otherwise, the application shall 1e refused or the 9ar" shall 1e re9oved fro9 the
re2ister.
$$
In other words, the pri9a facie presu9ption 1rou2ht a1out 1/ the re2istration of a
9ar" 9a/ 1e challen2ed and overco9e, in an appropriate action, 1/ proof of the nullit/ of the
re2istration or of non+use of the 9ar", eAcept when eAcused.
$(
7oreover, the presu9ption 9a/
li"ewise 1e defeated 1/ evidence of prior use 1/ another person, i.e., it will controvert a clai9 of
le2al appropriation or of ownership 1ased on re2istration 1/ a su1seDuent user. This is 1ecause a
trade9ar" is a creation of use and 1elon2s to one who first used it in trade or co99erce.
$

The deter9ination of priorit/ of use of a 9ar" is a Duestion of fact. #doption of the 9ar" alone
does not suffice. One 9a/ 9a"e advertise9ents, issue circulars, distri1ute price lists on certain
2oods, 1ut these alone will not inure to the clai9 of ownership of the 9ar" until the 2oods
1earin2 the 9ar" are sold to the pu1lic in the 9ar"et. #ccordin2l/, receipts, sales invoices, and
testi9onies of witnesses as custo9ers, or orders of 1u/ers, 1est prove the actual use of a 9ar" in
trade and co99erce durin2 a certain period of ti9e.
$!
In the instant case, 1oth parties have su19itted proof to support their clai9 of ownership of their
respective trade9ar"s.
Culled fro9 the records, 8erris, as oppositor to #1/adan2Cs application for re2istration of his
trade9ar", presented the followin2 evidenceI )1* its trade9ar" application dated Nove91er $-,
$%%$
$0
with #pplication No. +$%%$+%%1%$=$J )$* its IPO certificate of re2istration dated Octo1er
$!, $%%,
$=
with Re2istration No. +$%%$+%1%$=$ and 'ul/ &, $%% as the date of re2istrationJ )(*
a photocop/ of its pac"a2in2
$&
1earin2 the 9ar" :D+1% &% @P:J )* photocopies of its sales
invoices and official receiptsJ
$-
and )!* its notari4ed D#; dated #pril $(, $%%(,
(%
statin2 that the
9ar" was first used on 'une $%, $%%$, and indicatin2 that, as proof of actual use, copies of
official receipts or sales invoices of 2oods usin2 the 9ar" were attached as #nneA :8.:
On the other hand, #1/adan2Cs proofs consisted of the followin2I )1* a photocop/ of the
pac"a2in2
(1
for his 9ar"eted fun2icide 1earin2 9ar" :NS D+1% P5;S:J )$* #1/adan2Cs #ffidavit
dated 3e1ruar/ 1, $%%0,
($
statin2 a9on2 others that the 9ar" :NS D+1% P5;S: was his own
creation derived fro9I N K for Norv/, his na9eJ S K for Soledad, his wifeCs na9eJ D K the first
letter for Dece91er, his 1irth 9onthJ 1% K for Octo1er, the 1%th 9onth of the /ear, the 9onth of
his 1usiness na9e re2istrationJ and P5;S K to connote superior Dualit/J that when he applied for
re2istration, there was no1od/ appl/in2 for a 9ar" si9ilar to :NS D+1% P5;S:J that he did not
"now of the eAistence of 8erris or an/ of its productsJ that :D+1%: could not have 1een
associated with 8erris 1ecause the latter never en2a2ed in an/ co99ercial activit/ to sell :D+1%
&% @P: fun2icide in the local 9ar"etJ and that he could not have copied 8errisC 9ar" 1ecause he
re2istered his pac"a2in2 with the 3ertili4er and Pesticide #uthorit/ )3P#* ahead of 8errisJ )(*
Certification dated Dece91er 1-, $%%!
((
issued 1/ the 3P#, statin2 that :NS D+1% P5;S: is
owned and distri1uted 1/ NS Northern Or2anic 3ertili4er, re2istered with the 3P# since 7a/ $0,
$%%(, and had 1een in the 9ar"et since 'ul/ (%, $%%(J )* Certification dated Octo1er 11, $%%!
(

issued 1/ the 3P#, statin2 that, per 9onitorin2 a9on2 dealers in Re2ion I and in the Cordillera
#d9inistrative Re2ion re2istered with its office, the Re2ional Officer neither encountered the
fun2icide with 9ar" :D+1% &% @P: nor did the 3P# provincial officers fro9 the sa9e area
receive an/ report as to the presence or sale of 8errisC productJ )!* Certification dated 7arch 1,
$%%0
(!
issued 1/ the 3P#, certif/in2 that all pesticides 9ust 1e re2istered with the said office
pursuant to Section -
(0
of Presidential Decree )P.D.* No. 11
(=
and Section 1, #rticle II of 3P#
Rules and Re2ulations No. 1, Series of 1-==J )0* Certification dated 7arch 10, $%%0
(&
issued 1/
the 3P#, certif/in2 that the pesticide :D+1% &% @P: was re2istered 1/ 8erris on Nove91er 1$,
$%%J and )=* receipts fro9 Sunrise 3ar9 Suppl/
(-
in 5a Trinidad, 8en2uet of the sale of
#1/adan2Cs 2oods referred to as :D+1%: and :D+1%L.:
8ased on their proffered pieces of evidence, 1oth 8erris and #1/adan2 clai9 to 1e the prior user
of their respective 9ar"s.
@e rule in favor of 8erris.
8erris was a1le to esta1lish that it was usin2 its 9ar" :D+1% &% @P: since 'une $%, $%%$, even
1efore it filed for its re2istration with the IPO on Nove91er $-, $%%$, as shown 1/ its D#;
which was under oath and notari4ed, 1earin2 the sta9p of the 8ureau of Trade9ar"s of the IPO
on #pril $!, $%%(,
%
and which stated that it had an attach9ent as #nneA :8: sales invoices and
official receipts of 2oods 1earin2 the 9ar". Indeed, the D#;, 1ein2 a notari4ed docu9ent,
especiall/ when received in due course 1/ the IPO, is evidence of the facts it stated and has the
presu9ption of re2ularit/, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Thus, the 1urden of proof
to overco9e the presu9ption of authenticit/ and due eAecution lies on the part/ contestin2 it,
and the re1uttin2 evidence should 1e clear, stron2, and convincin2 as to preclude all controvers/
as to the falsit/ of the certificate.
1
@hat is 9ore, the D#; is 1uttressed 1/ the Certification
dated #pril $1, $%%0
$
issued 1/ the 8ureau of Trade9ar"s that 8errisC 9ar" is still valid and
eAistin2.
Bence, we cannot su1scri1e to the contention of #1/adan2 that 8errisC D#; is fraudulent 1ased
onl/ on his assu9ption that 8erris could not have le2all/ used the 9ar" in the sale of its 2oods
wa/ 1ac" in 'une $%%$ 1ecause it re2istered the product with the 3P# onl/ on Nove91er 1$,
$%%. #s correctl/ held 1/ the IPPD, in its decision on #1/adan2Cs appeal, the Duestion of
whether or not 8erris violated P.D. No. 11, 1ecause it sold its product without prior
re2istration with the 3P#, is a distinct and separate 9atter fro9 the Gurisdiction and concern of
the IPO. Thus, even a deter9ination of violation 1/ 8erris of P.D. No. 11 would not controvert
the fact that it did su19it evidence that it had used the 9ar" :D+1% &% @P: earlier than its 3P#
re2istration in $%%.
3urther9ore, even the 3P# Certification dated Octo1er 11, $%%!, statin2 that the office had
neither encountered nor received reports a1out the sale of the fun2icide :D+1% &% @P: within
Re2ion I and the Cordillera #d9inistrative Re2ion, could not ne2ate the fact that 8erris was
sellin2 its product usin2 that 9ar" in $%%$, especiall/ considerin2 that it first traded its 2oods in
Calauan, 5a2una, where its 1usiness office is located, as stated in the D#;.
Therefore, 8erris, as prior user and prior re2istrant, is the owner of the 9ar" :D+1% &% @P.: #s
such, 8erris has in its favor the ri2hts conferred 1/ Section 1= of R.#. No. &$-(, which
provides.
Sec. 1=. Ri2hts Conferred..
1=.1. The owner of a re2istered 9ar" shall have the eAclusive ri2ht to prevent all third parties
not havin2 the ownerCs consent fro9 usin2 in the course of trade identical or si9ilar si2ns or
containers for 2oods or services which are identical or si9ilar to those in respect of which the
trade9ar" is re2istered where such use would result in a li"elihood of confusion. In case of the
use of an identical si2n for identical 2oods or services, a li"elihood of confusion shall 1e
presu9ed.
1=.$. The eAclusive ri2ht of the owner of a well+"nown 9ar" defined in Su1section 1$(.1)e*
which is re2istered in the Philippines, shall eAtend to 2oods and services which are not si9ilar to
those in respect of which the 9ar" is re2isteredI Provided, That use of that 9ar" in relation to
those 2oods or services would indicate a connection 1etween those 2oods or services and the
owner of the re2istered 9ar"I Provided, further, That the interests of the owner of the re2istered
9ar" are li"el/ to 1e da9a2ed 1/ such use.
Now, we confront the Duestion, :Is #1/adan2Cs 9ar" MNS D+1% P5;SC confusin2l/ si9ilar to
that of 8errisC MD+1% &% @PC such that the latter can ri2htfull/ prevent the IPO re2istration of the
for9erN:
@e answer in the affir9ative.
#ccordin2 to Section 1$(.1)d* of R.#. No. &$-(, a 9ar" cannot 1e re2istered if it is identical
with a re2istered 9ar" 1elon2in2 to a different proprietor with an earlier filin2 or priorit/ date,
with respect toI )1* the sa9e 2oods or servicesJ )$* closel/ related 2oods or servicesJ or )(* near
rese91lance of such 9ar" as to li"el/ deceive or cause confusion.
In deter9inin2 si9ilarit/ and li"elihood of confusion, Gurisprudence has developed tests.the
Do9inanc/ Test and the Bolistic or Totalit/ Test. The Do9inanc/ Test focuses on the si9ilarit/
of the prevalent or do9inant features of the co9petin2 trade9ar"s that 9i2ht cause confusion,
9ista"e, and deception in the 9ind of the purchasin2 pu1lic. Duplication or i9itation is not
necessar/J neither is it reDuired that the 9ar" sou2ht to 1e re2istered su22ests an effort to i9itate.
,iven 9ore consideration are the aural and visual i9pressions created 1/ the 9ar"s on the
1u/ers of 2oods, 2ivin2 little wei2ht to factors li"e prices, Dualit/, sales outlets, and 9ar"et
se29ents.
(
In contrast, the Bolistic or Totalit/ Test necessitates a consideration of the entiret/ of the 9ar"s
as applied to the products, includin2 the la1els and pac"a2in2, in deter9inin2 confusin2
si9ilarit/. The discernin2 e/e of the o1server 9ust focus not onl/ on the predo9inant words 1ut
also on the other features appearin2 on 1oth la1els so that the o1server 9a/ draw conclusion on
whether one is confusin2l/ si9ilar to the other.

Co9parin2 8errisC 9ar" :D+1% &% @P: with #1/adan2Cs 9ar" :NS D+1% P5;S,: as appearin2
on their respective pac"a2es, one cannot 1ut notice that 1oth have a co99on co9ponent which
is :D+1%.: On 8errisC pac"a2e, the :D+1%: is written with a 1i22er font than the :&% @P.:
#d9ittedl/, the :D+1%: is the do9inant feature of the 9ar". The :D+1%,: 1ein2 at the 1e2innin2
of the 9ar", is what is 9ost re9e91ered of it. #lthou2h, it appears in 8errisC certificate of
re2istration in the sa9e font si4e as the :&% @P,: its do9inanc/ in the :D+1% &% @P: 9ar"
stands since the difference in the for9 does not alter its distinctive character.
!

#ppl/in2 the Do9inanc/ Test, it cannot 1e 2ainsaid that #1/adan2Cs :NS D+1% P5;S: is si9ilar
to 8errisC :D+1% &% @P,: that confusion or 9ista"e is 9ore li"el/ to occur. ;ndenia1l/, 1oth
9ar"s pertain to the sa9e t/pe of 2oods K fun2icide with &%< 7anco4e1 as an active in2redient
and used for the sa9e 2roup of fruits, crops, ve2eta1les, and orna9ental plants, usin2 the sa9e
dosa2e and 9anner of application. The/ also 1elon2 to the sa9e classification of 2oods under
R.#. No. &$-(. 8oth depictions of :D+1%,: as found in 1oth 9ar"s, are si9ilar in si4e, such that
this portion is what catches the e/e of the purchaser. ;ndenia1l/, the li"elihood of confusion is
present.
This li"elihood of confusion and 9ista"e is 9ade 9ore 9anifest when the Bolistic Test is
applied, ta"in2 into consideration the pac"a2in2, for 1oth use the sa9e t/pe of 9aterial )foil
t/pe* and have identical color sche9es )red, 2reen, and white*J and the 9ar"s are 1oth
predo9inantl/ red in color, with the sa9e phrase :8RO#D SPECTR;7 3;N,ICIDE: written
underneath.1awphi1
Considerin2 these stri"in2 si9ilarities, predo9inantl/ the :D+1%,: the 1u/ers of 1oth products,
9ainl/ far9ers, 9a/ 1e 9isled into thin"in2 that :NS D+1% P5;S: could 1e an up2raded
for9ulation of the :D+1% &% @P.:
7oreover, notwithstandin2 the findin2 of the IPPD, that the :D+1%: is a fanciful co9ponent of
the trade9ar", created for the sole purpose of functionin2 as a trade9ar", and does not 2ive the
na9e, Dualit/, or description of the product for which it is used, nor does it descri1e the place of
ori2in, such that the de2ree of eAclusiveness 2iven to the 9ar" is closel/ restricted,
0
and
considerin2 its challen2e 1/ #1/adan2 with respect to the 9eanin2 he has 2iven to it, what
re9ains is the fact that 8erris is the owner of the 9ar" :D+1% &% @P,: inclusive of its do9inant
feature :D+1%,: as esta1lished 1/ its prior use, and prior re2istration with the IPO. Therefore,
8erris properl/ opposed and the IPO correctl/ reGected #1/adan2Cs application for re2istration of
the 9ar" :NS D+1% P5;S.:
>eril/, the protection of trade9ar"s as intellectual propert/ is intended not onl/ to preserve the
2oodwill and reputation of the 1usiness esta1lished on the 2oods 1earin2 the 9ar" throu2h actual
use over a period of ti9e, 1ut also to safe2uard the pu1lic as consu9ers a2ainst confusion on
these 2oods.
=
On this 9atter of particular concern, ad9inistrative a2encies, such as the IPO, 1/
reason of their special "nowled2e and eApertise over 9atters fallin2 under their Gurisdiction, are
in a 1etter position to pass Gud29ent thereon. Thus, their findin2s of fact in that re2ard are
2enerall/ accorded 2reat respect, if not finalit/ 1/ the courts, as lon2 as the/ are supported 1/
su1stantial evidence, even if such evidence 9i2ht not 1e overwhel9in2 or even preponderant. It
is not the tas" of the appellate court to wei2h once 9ore the evidence su19itted 1efore the
ad9inistrative 1od/ and to su1stitute its own Gud29ent for that of the ad9inistrative a2enc/ in
respect to sufficienc/ of evidence.
&
Inas9uch as the ownership of the 9ar" :D+1% &% @P: fittin2l/ 1elon2s to 8erris, and 1ecause
the sa9e should not have 1een cancelled 1/ the C#, we consider it proper not to 1ela1or
an/9ore the issue of whether cancellation of a re2istered 9ar" 9a/ 1e done a1sent a petition for
cancellation.
@BERE3ORE, the petition is ,R#NTED. The assailed Decision dated #pril 1, $%%& and
Resolution dated 'une 1&, $%%& of the Court of #ppeals in C#+,.R. SP No. ---$& are
RE>ERSED and SET #SIDE. #ccordin2l/, the Decision No. $%%0+$ dated #pril $&, $%%0 and
the Resolution No. $%%0+%-)D* dated #u2ust $, $%%0 in IPC No. 1+$%%!+%%%--, and the
Decision dated 'ul/ $%, $%%= in #ppeal No. 1+%0+1( are REINST#TED. Costs a2ainst
respondent.
SO ORDERED.