l'
"
,.. ~
,
'
I
l INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES
CPAC MONIER PHILIPPINES, INC. Respondent, -versus EDGARDO G. VAZQUEZ, Complainant. } } } } } } }
1 I
(IPV NO. 10-2003-00008 For: Infringement of Design Patent with Damages)
)(----------------------------------------------------)(
ORDER
On 07 January 2005, CPAC MONIER PHILIPPINES, INC., respondent in Intellectual Property Violation (IPV) Case No. 10-2003-00008 which is pending at the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA), filed an URGENT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (To File Appeal Memorandum). Citing counsel's alleged unexpected heavy volume of work and the pressure of other equally urgent professional commitments, consisting of filing of pleadings in other cases, conferences with clients, and almost daily court appearances, that have accumulated due to the extended yuletide holidays, said party prays that it be given an additional period of fifteen (15) days from 07 January 2005, or until 22 January 2005, within which to file its Appeal Memorandum. For this purpose, the movant paid the appeal fee. Apparently, movant assails Resolution No. 2004-13 issued by the BLA on 27 July 2004, which reconsidered the earlier Order No. 2004-21 of the said bureau dated 05 February 2004, and in effect granting the opposing party's Motion to Strike Off and Expunge Petition for Cancellation of Design Registration. A perusal of Resolution No. 2004-13 reveals that the petition was filed by the movant as a "rider" to its Answer to the complaint for infringement in IPV No. 10-2003-00008. Section 2 of the IPO Uniform Rules on Appeal (Office Order No. 12, series of 2002) does not provide for an extension of the period within which to file the appeal to this Office regardless whether the appeal has been paid or not. But even if in some extreme and meritorious circumstances such extensions may be allowed, in this instance however, this Office finds no legal basis to favorably consider the instant motion. A perusal of Resolution No. 2004-13 reveals that it is not a decision nor a final order contemplated in the above cited rule. Movant's petition for cancellation of the design registration subject of the complaint for infringement in IPV No. 10-2003-00008 is not a separate inter partes case but as a defense
i f
f
I;
..
"
.t~
defense as allowed then under Section 45 of Republic Act No. 1651 and now under Section 81 of Republic Act No. 8293.2 The disposition of the BlA of said issue via Resolution No. 2004-13 did not terminate the case. In fact, the dispositive portion of the assailed resolution set the hearing of IPV No. 10 2003-00008 case for the continuance of the Pre-Trial Conference. On this score, a definitive judgment is one that decides finally the right of the parties upon the issues submitted, by specifically denying or granting the remedy sought by the acnon." Aptly, the assailed resolution, in this instance, is merely an interlocutory order because it does not terminate nor finally dispose of the case but leaves something to be done by the court (in this case the Bureau of legal Affairs) before the case is finally decided on the merits." WHEREFORE, premises considered the instant motion is hereby denied. SO ORDERED. 11 January 2005, Makati City, Philippines.
,
"~~I~~. GALICIA y Director General
Old Law on Patents Otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. 3 Miranda v. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 295 (1976). 4 Philgreen Trading Construction Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 719 (1997).
I
"
COPY FURNISHED:
DE BORJA MEDIALDEA BELLO GUEVARRA & GERODIAS Attention: ATTY. MARIA FARAH Z.G. NICOLAS-SUCHIANO ATTY. MA. CONCEPCION L. REGALADO ATTY. RONALD FRANCO S. COSICO Counsel for Respondent-Appellant 21st Floor, Wynsum Corporate Plaza Emerald Avenue, Ortigas Center Pasig City
O. M. MANAHAN & ASSOCIATES Counsel for Complainant-Appellee Room 205 Megastate Building G. Araneta Avenue corner Agno Extension
Quezon City
i
I
ESTRELLITA BELTRAN-ABELARDO Director Bureau of Legal Affairs Intellectual Property Office Makati City
I r
1
