35 United Feature Syndicate, Inc v.

Munsingwear Creation Manufacturing Company

FACTS
Assailed CA decision: dismissed appeal of UFS for being filed out of time no notice of hearing on the
MR that was filed at the end of the 15 days therefore it did not interrupt the period (mere scrap of paper
rule).
Case arose from a petition by UFSI for cancellation of MCMCs trademark CHARLIE BROWN on shirts
based on:
1) MCMC was not entitled to CHARLIE BROWN AND DEVICE
2) Charlie brown is creation copyrighted and exclusively owned worldwide by UFSI
3) Since 1950, UFSI has used and reproduced it to the exclusion of others
4) MCMC has no bona fide use of the trademark in commerce in PH prior to application
o Director of PPO: copyright registration of CHALIE BROWN does not provide cause of action for
trademark registration cancellation.
o CA: assailed decision aforementioned

ISSUES + RULING
Did the CA err in basing its decision on strict CivPro rules instead of the policy of the patent office? YES.
Purpose of notice is to afford MCMC opportunity to resist motion BUT MCMC was actually able to do so
when they opposed the petition therefore, procedure defect was cured
Right to appeal should not be lightly disregarded by strict rules where justice is best served by
permitting such appeal.
o Castro v. CA: appeals are a central part of our judicial system and rules must not be applied
rigidly; procedural technicality < substantive right
o A CA decision that became final through mistake may still be reviewed on appeal by SC

Did CA commit GADLEJ by dismissing the appeal despite an SC decision to the effect that a copyrighted
character may not be appropriated as trademark by another under PD 49? YES, CANCEL Cert of Reg of
MCMC
UFSI: it will be damaged by permitting the application of MCMC and it has better rights over CHARLIE
BROWN since CB appeared in newspapers all over the world, covered by their copyright for the longest
time.
o Decision re: name and likeness of CB may not provide cause of action for cancellation of
trademark was based on Childrens Television Workshop v. Touch of Class BUT THIS WAS
REVERSED (bale CA reversed Childrens TV again by saying that in that case, Cookie Monster
was copyrighted by CTW and this precludes appropriation as a trademark by ToC)
Section 2, PD 49.
The rights granted by this Decree shall, from the moment of creation, subsist with respect to any of the
following classes of works: x x x x x x x x x
(O) Prints, pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags and box wraps. x x x
Aside form copyright, UFSI also owns trademarks for CB as early as 1957 including tv specials. It is
undeniable from the records that petitioner is the actual owner of said trademark due to its prior
registration with the Patents Office.
o La Chemise Lacoste v. Fernandez v. Ongpin:
n upholding the right of the petitioner to maintain the present suit before our courts for unfair
competition or infringement of trademarks of a foreign corporation, we are moreover recognizing
our duties and the rights of foregoing states under the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property to which the Philippines and (France) U.S. are parties. We are simply
interpreting a solemn international commitment of the Philippines embodied in a multilateral
treaty to which we are a party and which we entered into because it is in our national interest to
do so.