In March 2025, the Office of the Director General (ODG) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) issued decisions in two unrelated trademark disputes: Dolce International Holdings, Inc. v. Director of the Bureau of Trademarks (Appeal No. 04-2004-0008) and Kraftool Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Stayer Iberica Corporation (14-2004-0006). Both the Dolce and Stayer cases involved significant procedural issues that directly affected the outcome of the proceedings. While both cases addressed compliance with rules governing procedure, they involved different types of infractions – one related to timeliness, and the other to documentary compliance. 

Dolce: Appeal dismissed for late filing 

In a decision dated March 27, 2025, the director general of the IPOPHL dismissed the appeal of Dolce International Holdings (the appellant) for having been filed beyond the prescribed 30-day reglementary period, underscoring the strict compliance of procedural rules in trademark proceedings. 

The appellant sought registration of the mark “Dolce” for services in Class 43, specifically: services for providing food and drink, temporary accommodation, operation of resort hotels and business conference centers and making lodging reservations for others. The application was refused by the examiner on grounds that it was confusingly similar to the registered mark “Dolce Mia,” which covered pastries and bakery goods. In response, the appellant argued that: (i) the marks catered to different goods and consumers, (ii) the dominant impression and commercial setting of each mark were distinct (hotel vs. bakery) (iii) the term “Dolce” was part of the company’s trade name, protected under Section 165.2 of the IP Code, and (iv) there are about 42 registered marks containing the word “Dolce” co-existing in the Trademarks Registry. Despite these arguments, the director of the Bureau of Trademarks (BOT) sustained the examiner’s refusal, holding that the goods/services were overlapping (i.e., food and drink services and temporary accommodation) and that the marks are confusingly similar. 

The ODG dismissed the appeal for being filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period. The decision by the BOT director was received by the appellant on December 6, 2023, thus, it had until January 5, 2024, to file an appeal or request for extension to file the same. However, the appellant filed the appeal memorandum only on February 6, 2024.  

The appellant attributed the late filing to an error committed by their probationary staff, by failing to transmit the decision to the trademarks department. They sought the indulgence of the ODG to relax procedural rules, citing no intent to delay and asserting that no prejudice would be caused to any party. However, the ODG ruled that procedural deadlines are mandatory and jurisdictional, that the negligence of counsel or staff is not an excusable reason for delay, and that to allow such appeals despite tardiness would undermine the integrity of the rules and the finality of decisions. The ODG did not rule on the merits of the case, and highlighted  that a decision, once final and executory, cannot be altered save for clerical errors. 

The case underscores the importance of procedural compliance in trademark appeals. Despite potentially meritorious arguments, Dolce International Holding’s failure to timely perfect its appeal left it without recourse, reinforcing the rule that diligence in observing procedural timelines is as critical as the substantive merits of the case. 

Stayer: Appeal granted despite procedural non-compliance 

In the Stayer case (IPC No. 14-2018-00078), the ODG granted the appeal filed by Kraftool Mfg. Co. In this case, Stayer Iberica Corporation opposed the trademark application of Kraftool for the mark “Stayer” under Class 7. Stayer Iberica alleged confusing similarity with its own marks “Stayer,” “Stayer Tools” and “Stayer Professional.” The adjudication officer of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) declared Karftool in default and granted the opposition, and ruled that a comparison of the marks of Kraftool and Stayer Iberica showed that said marks are identical in the word mark “Stayer.” 

On appeal, the BLA director sustained the decision of the adjudication officer. The director confirmed that what was submitted was merely a photocopy of the power of attorney and that the directive to submit an authenticated copy was not complied with. The appeal questioning the default order was denied, affirming the procedural consequence. 

Despite finding non-compliance with the rules, the director general granted the appeal ruling that “the fact that a party has lost its standing in court for having been declared in default does not mean that he is left sans any recourse whatsoever. Said party may appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or to the law, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented by him.” The director general reversed and set aside the BLA director’s decision and granted the appeal of Kraftool.  

Conclusion 

The Dolce and Stayer rulings illustrate IPOPHL’s breadth of discretion in the application of technical rules. There have been cases where the failure to file on time, depending on the reasons offered, were granted. Similarly, there were cases where photocopied documents were not admitted leading to the dismissal of the case. For guidance of practitioners, it goes without saying that compliance with procedures should be top of the mind in order for arguments on the merits of the case can be more fully appreciated.