Post on 27-Apr-2023
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
i
The following terms have the following meanings:
"Mark" means any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods
(trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a
stamped or marked container of goods; (Sec. 38, R. A. No. 166a)
Authors note: services marks are usually also referred to as trademarks.
"Collective mark" means any visible sign designated as such in the
application for registration and capable of distinguishing the origin or any
other common characteristic, including the quality of goods or services of
different enterprises which use the sign under the control of the registered
owner of the collective mark; (Sec. 40, R. A. No. 166a)
"Trade name" means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an
enterprise; (Sec. 38, R. A. No. 166a)
"Bureau" means the Bureau of Trademarks;
"Director" means the Director of Trademarks;
"Regulations" or “IRR” means the Rules of Practice in Trademarks and
Service Marks formulated by the Director of Trademarks and approved by
the Director General; and
"Examiner" means the trademark examiner. (Sec. 38, R. A. No. 166a)
“IPOPHL” means Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines
Definitions
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
ii
CONTENTS
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction 1
Section 1. What is Intellectual Property? 3
Section 2. Brief History of Philippine Trademark Law 3
Section 3. What is a Trademark? 5
Section 4. What is Goodwill? 6
Section 5. Why should l get a Trademark in the Philippines? 6
Section 6. How Marks are Acquired? 7
Section 7. Marks must be visible 7
Section 8. Marks must be Distinctiveness 12
Section 9. What marks cannot be registered? 13
Section 10. When Trademark’s exclusive right is created? 38
Section 11. Term of Protection 38
Chapter Ⅱ. Philippines’ Trademark principle 39
Section 1. Principle of first to file rule 41
Section 2. International treaties that Philippines joined 41
Chapter Ⅲ. Application for Trademark Registration 43
Section 1. Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines 45
Section 2. Pre-filing of Trademark 46
Section 3. Application of Trademark 46
Section 4. Additional Requirements for Trademark Registration 50
Section 5. Examination (Office Action) 50
Section 6. Trademark Publication (Opposition) 51
Section 7. Post-filing 53
Section 8. IPOPHL’s Trademark application and registration statistics 59
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
iii
CONTENTS
Chapter Ⅳ. Utilization of Trademark 61
Section 1. Licensing, franchising, sale, rent 63
Section 2. Procedure 65
Chapter Ⅴ. Countermeasure to Trademark Infringement 69
Section 1. What is Trademark Infringement? 71
Section 2. How to respond to trademark infringement 71
Section 3. Countermeasures of Trademark infringement case 72
Section 4. IPOPHL’s mediation 72
Section 5. Criminal sanction 72
Chapter Ⅵ. Trademark Infringement cases 73
Chapter Ⅶ. Trademark related Government office and organization 101
Chapter Ⅷ. Frequent FAQ 107
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
3
Section 1. What is Intellectual Property?
According the World Intellectual Property Office, Intellectual property
“refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works;
designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce.” Intellectual
property rights are rights granted by the state in order to develop and encourage
innovation, works, and businesses in the economy.
Intellectual Property is protected by law because it (1) “enable[s] people
to earn recognition or financial benefit from what they invent or create.”1) and (2)
It also strives to promote and create a community where innovation and creativity
can flourish.2) Intellectual Property strikes a balance between the interest of the
Intellectual Property owners and public and general.
Section 2. Brief History of Philippine Trademark Law
Even before recorded history marks have been used to indicate the source of
ownership of various articles of goods. Anything from prehistoric potteries, cave
drawings, and other archaeological artifacts would reveal that humans have been
using marks as a sign to indicate where the goods came from or who it belongs to.3)
Previously, the primary use of marks was to allow the government to
regulate the goods coming in and out of its territory. It was a badge of origin used
to weed out fake and foreign goods from the market. Marks have been also used
to indicate that the goods have passed the standards or other regulations imposed
by government, e.g. gold stamps, tax payments, etc.4)
1) WIPO
2) Pearl and Dean v. Shoemart,G.R. No. 148222. August 15, 2003, see also WIPO
3) Anuradha Maheshwari nuradha Maheshwari, Trademark Basics,
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sme/en/wipo_smes_hyd_07/wipo_smes_hyd_07_www_91793.pdf,
History of Trademarks: Everything You Need to Know,
https://www.upcounsel.com/history-of-trademarks, Negre, Ferdinand, Trademark Law in a Knotshell:
From Caves to Cyberspace, September 20, 2007,
http://www.iplaw.ph/ip-views/Trademark-Law-From-Caves-to-Cyberspace.html, Accessed April 29,
2019 Paster, Benjamin, Trademarks-Their Early History, Trademark Reporter Issue 8, August 1969, pp. 552-559.
4) Negre, Id.; Paster, Id.
Ⅰ Introduction
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
4
The industrial period also gave a bigger role to trademarks. Trademarks by
that time were not only used to identify the source of the goods but also indicate its
quality. A trademark affixed on the goods would now also indicate that the goods are
at par to the quality of the goods which the customer is accustomed to.5) It should
be noted that before the late 19’ century, trademark law was primarily driven by common law.6)
In the Philippines, the earliest codified trademark law was the Spanish
trademark law was enacted on October 1888.7)
After losing the Spanish-American war and after accession to the United
States, the Philippine Commission passed its own trademark law entitled the
“Trademark and Tradename Law of the Philippine Island” or Act No. 666 which
was based on United States Trademark Law. Under this law, an owner of a mark
acquires the mark through actual use of the mark in commerce.8)
In 1930, “Revised Penal Code” criminalized some forms of trademark
infringement and unfair competition.9)
In 1946, the Philippines passed Republic Act 166,10) which was
substantially similar to the Lanham Act enacted by the United States in 1945.11)
Republic Act 166 did not deviate away from the first to use system enunciated
in the Act No. 666.
In 1994, the Philippine acceded to the TRIPS agreement. Said agreement
is an international treaty which sets down minimum standards for the regulation
of Intellectual Property by the national law. It should be noted that the TRIPS
agreement does not require countries to enact laws prohibiting the registration of
disparaging and immoral trademarks, rather, it merely allows countries to enact
laws prohibiting the registration of disparaging and immoral marks.12)
5) Negre, Id.
6) Paster, Supra Note 1.
7) Negre, Supra Note 1.
8) Negre, Id.;The Trademark and Trade Name Law of the Philippine Islands, Act No. 666 (1903).
9) Art. 188-189, An Act Revising The Penal Code And Other Penal Laws, Act No. 3815, (1930).
10) An Act To Provide For The Registration And Protection Of Trade-Marks, Trade-Names And
Service-Marks, Defining Unfair Competition And False Marking And Providing Remedies Against The
Same, And For Other Purposes, Republic Act No. 166 (1947).
11) Fredco v. Havard, G.R. No. 185917, June 2011
12) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
5
In 1998, the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines” (“Intellectual
Property Code”) was passed, during this time the Philippines shifted from the first
to use system to the first to register system.13) However, it should be noted that
the law maintained essentially the same previously unregistrable marks from the
previous laws.
Republic Act No. 9502, otherwise known as the “Cheaper Medicines Act”
was passed on 2008.14) The Cheaper Medicines Act did not substantial amend the
provisions of the Intellectual Property Code. The Cheaper Medicines Act only
affected the pharmaceutical industry and their marks. The purpose of the Cheaper
Medicines Act was to make it easier for pharmaceutical companies to do business
in the Philippines even though there is a chance that it would impinge locally
established marks. In short, the Cheaper Medicines Act was passed in order to
promote the right to health of individuals by making it easier for them to acquire
life-saving or life-changing medicines.15)
Author’s note : The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines
periodically amends its Internal Rules and Regulations (“IRR”) which interprets and
implements the above laws, the latest amendments for the trademark IRR was
made on 2017.
Section 3. What is a Trademark?
A trademark is visual sign, which can be represented as a word, a group
of words, sign, symbol, logo or a combination thereof, that identifies and
differentiates the source of the goods or services of one entity from those of
others.16)
13) An Act Prescribing The Intellectual Property Code And Establishing The Intellectual Property Office,
Providing For Its Powers And Functions, And For Other Purposes [Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines] Republic Act 8293 (1998)
14) An Act Providing For Cheaper And Quality Medicines, Amending For The Purpose Republic ACT
NO. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code, Republic Act No. 6675 or the Generics Act Of 1988,
And Republic Act No. 5921 Or The Pharmacy Law, And For Other Purposes, [Cheaper Medicines
Act] Republic Act No. 9502(2008).
15) Id.
16) WIPO, IPOPHL, IP Code
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
6
Author’s note : The term “trademark” is often interchanged and confused
with the different types of registered marks such as service marks, collective
marks, and trade names)
Trademarks also act as a badge of a certain quality or characteristic. It can
be used to identify certain non-business characteristic such as political, social, or
religious affiliation.
Section 4. What is Goodwill?
Goodwill is an intangible asset that arises when one company purchases
another for a premium value. The value of a company’s brand name, solid
customer base, good customer relations, good employee relations, and any
patents or proprietary technology represent goodwill.17)
Section 5. Why should I get a Trademark in the Philippines?
Having an active trademark in the Philippines ensures that your brand
and/or logo will be protected in the Philippines from people trying to exploit an
identical or similar brand or logo. This mean that the goodwill of the brand is
better protected from scrupulous persons.
If a person registers your mark and they sell fake or adulterated products,
chances are, your goodwill will be affected negatively. The person may also try
and block you in selling or distributing your products here in the Philippines. Said
persons may also take the brand name for ransom. They will ask you to pay a
hefty price for them to transfer or license the mark which should belong to you.
Author’s note : Trademark squatting is not a criminal offense in the
Philippines. This means that trademark squatters have nothing to lose in
registering the trademark of third parties, especially registering the marks of
foreign corporations. Thus, having an active trademark is also the best way to
avoid litigation involving an identical or similar mark in the future.
17) Goodwill, Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/goodwill.asp#ixzz5UR3l9iKq (last
accessed at October 20, 2018)
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
7
Having an active trademark also makes it easier to distribute the goods
in the Philippines, since, some Philippine companies require that the goods to be
distributed are trademarked.
Having trademarks for non-business purposes is also good since
trademarks can be used for social, religious, or political matters. (e.g. registering
the name of a church or social club)
In addition, marks are also used by almost every social circles, from
religion, sports, aliases, music, and even recreation groups. For example we have
marks such as Iglesia ni Kristo, CloudNine, etc.
Section 6. How Marks are Acquired?
Valid marks are only acquired through registration made validly in
accordance with the provisions of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.
Unless otherwise indicated in Philippine trademark law, local law, or international
law, a mark that is not registered in the Philippine Trademark registry will not be
considered as valid in the Philippines. This is because intellectual property law is
territorial in nature. Being territorial in nature, the effectiveness of the Philippine
registered marks only extend within the jurisdiction of Philippines.
However, foreign marks and local marks which are considered
internationally well-known trademarks are PROTECTED in and out the Philippines.
Section 7. Marks must be visible
In the Philippines, only visible marks are capable of being protected under
trademark law.
A non-visual sign which may be represented in a visually representation
cannot be registered. This is because “the visual representation would not change
the inherent nature of that sign, which cannot be perceived by the sense of sight
when used as a mark in the course of trade.”18)
18) ASEAN Common Guidelines for Substantive Examination of Trademarks.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
8
No. Example
1The catchy tunes of Selecta’s ice cream bell, even if placed on
sheet music will not be allowed trademark registrationNOT ALLOWABLE
2 The sound used by THX during the start of movies NOT ALLOWABLE
3 The MGM lion’s roar NOT ALLOWABLE
Registrable visually perceptible signs will generally fall under the following
categories:
Two-dimensional signs
Three-dimensional signs
Two-dimensional signs
Two-dimensional signs are visually-perceptible signs in a 2-D plane. The usual
two-dimensional signs are symbols or letters that can be read. They can also be
drawings or pictures. Although videos or animations can be considered as two-dimensional
signs, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines current does not accept
long videos or animations as valid marks subject to trademark registration.
Words, letters, digits, numerals, ideograms, slogans (“word marks”)
“This type of [two-dimensional] sign contains only elements that can be
read, including signs consisting of one or more words (with or without meaning),
letters, digits, numerals or recognizable ideograms, or a combination thereof,
including slogans and advertisement phrases.”19)
“This type of sign may be presented in ‘standard’ characters or in special,
fanciful, non-standard characters that may pertain to any alphabet, and may have
one or more colors. They will not contain any figurative element, frame or
background.”20)
19) ASEAN Common Guidelines for Substantive Examination of Trademarks.
20) Id.
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
9
Example
OXO
APPLE COMPUTERS
Αλφάβητο
120938102947
Some of the examples above came from ASEAN Common Guidelines for
Substantive Examination of Trademarks (“ASEAN Trademark Guidelines”)
Figurative signs
“This type of sign will consist of one or more two-dimensional figurative
elements. They may represent existing creatures (animals, flowers, etc.), real or
fictitious persons or characters (portraits, cartoon characters, etc.), and real or
imaginary objects or creatures (sun, stars, mountains, flying saucers, dragons,
etc.). They may also consist of fanciful, abstract or geometrical shapes, devices,
figures, logos or other purposely-created two-dimensional shapes. Ideograms and
characters that are not understood or have no meaning for the average consumer
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
10
in the country where registration is sought may be regarded as figurative signs or
figurative elements of signs.
Figurative signs may have one or more colors but will not contain any
words, letters, digits, numerals or ideograms.”
Examples:
The examples above came from the ASEAN Trademark Guidelines.
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
11
Mixed signs
“This type of sign will consist of a combination of one or more words, letters,
digits, numerals or ideograms with one or more figurative sign or non-word
element. The figurative element may be embodied within the word element, be
adjacent to or superposed on the word element, or be a background or a frame.
The non-figurative elements (words, numerals, etc.) may be presented in
‘standard’ Characters or in special, fanciful characters, and the sign may have one
or more colours.”
Example
Author’s notes : Are foreign characters (non-Latin characters) considered
as word marks? Yes and no, foreign characters are registered as figurative marks
in the Philippines. However, during examination they are treated like word marks.
If I do not add figurative marks, logos or other embellishments to my
word mark, do I have greater risk?
Yes, generic mark, customary, and descriptive marks using lightly stylized
words may be denied registration by the trademark examiner. (generic marks will
be discussed later on)
Does the IPOPHL allow the registration of .gif or movement marks?
No, due to system limitations, the IPOPHL does not current allow the
registration of .gif or movement marks.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
12
Does the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines allow the
registration of textured marks?
No, even if the textures can be visually seen, the IPOPHL does not allow
the registration of textures.
Does the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines allow position
marks?
Yes, the IPOPHL has allowed the registration of some position marks.
Example:
Adidas’
Picture from ASEAN Trademark Guidelines
Section 8. Marks must be Distinctive
In order to be registered as a valid mark a sign has to be distinctive in
respect of the goods or services for which it will be used in trade. “This means
that the sign must be capable of distinguishing goods and services in the course
of trade. The distinctiveness of a sign for purposes of its registration as a mark
must be established on a case-by-case basis with regard to the particular goods
and services for which the mark will be used and for which registration is sought.
Also, distinctiveness must be determined taking into account the perception of the
sign by the public to whom the mark will be addressed, that is, the relevant sector
of the public.”
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
13
The lack of distinctiveness of a mark may result from:
“(i) the fact that the sign’s constituent features make it unintelligible or
imperceptible by the average consumer when used as a trademark, or the
fact that the average consumer will not understand or recognize that the
sign is intended as a mark; or
(ii) the relationship between the mark and the particular goods or services
to which it is applied in the course of trade, or the legal, social or
economic context in which the mark would be used.”
Refusals based on lack of distinctiveness shall be discussed in the next
section.
Section 9. What marks cannot be registered?
The following are marks which cannot be registered:
(a) Consists of immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter, or matter
which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons,
living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them
into contempt or disrepute;
(b) Consists of the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the
Philippines or any of its political subdivisions, or of any foreign nation,
or any simulation thereof;
(c) Consists of a name, portrait or signature identifying a particular living
individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or
portrait of a deceased President of the Philippines, during the life of
his widow, if any, except by written consent of the widow;
(d) Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or
a mark with an earlier filing or priority date, in respect of:
(i) The same goods or services, or
(ii) Closely related goods or services, or
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
14
(iii) If it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive
or cause confusion;
(a) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation
of a mark which is considered by the competent authority of the
Philippines to be well-known internationally and in the Philippines,
whether or not it is registered here, as being already the mark of a
person other than the applicant for registration, and used for identical
or similar goods or services: Provided, That in determining whether a
mark is well-known, account shall be taken of the knowledge of the
relevant sector of the public, rather than of the public at large,
including knowledge in the Philippines which has been obtained as a
result of the promotion of the mark;
(b) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation
of a mark considered well-known in accordance with the preceding
paragraph, which is registered in the Philippines with respect to goods
or services which are not similar to those with respect to which
registration is applied for: Provided, That use of the mark in relation
to those goods or services would indicate a connection between
those goods or services, and the owner of the registered mark:
Provided further, That the interests of the owner of the registered
mark are likely to be damaged by such use;
(c) Is likely to mislead the public, particularly as to the nature, quality,
characteristics or geographical origin of the goods or services;
(d) Consists exclusively of signs that are generic for the goods or
services that they seek to identify;
(e) Consists exclusively of signs or of indications that have become
customary or usual to designate the goods or services in everyday
language or in bona fide and established trade practice;
(f) Consists exclusively of signs or of indications that may serve in trade
to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value,
geographical origin, time or production of the goods or rendering of
the services, or other characteristics of the goods or services;
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
15
(g) Consists of shapes that may be necessitated by technical factors or
by the nature of the goods themselves or factors that affect their
intrinsic value;
(h) Consists of color alone, unless defined by a given form; or
(i) Is contrary to public order or morality.
The above non-registrable marks can be divided into two categories.
Marks which cannot be registered based on Absolute grounds and Marks which
cannot be registered based on Relative grounds.
Absolute grounds are founded on the principles that the mark should not
be allowed registration because the mark violates the very principles and purpose
of trademark law, violates core principles of the state or its citizens, or violates
other laws relating public order or morality.
Usually marks are denied based on absolute grounds because (1) the
mark does not conform to the Philippine definition of a trademark, (2) the mark
lacks the distinctive characteristics of a trademark, (3) the mark is functional, (4)
the mark does not act as a trademark, or (5) the mark is immoral or against public
order.
To sum it up, refusal based absolute grounds is due to the inherent defect of the
mark.
Relative grounds are refusals based on a existing right of a third party.
An existing right can be based on an existing Philippine registered trademark,
foreign registered mark, and unregistered marks. They are called relative grounds
because these only exist upon the contingency of an already existing third party
right.
When an objection is raised based on relative grounds, the examiner
bases his judgment based on how the registration of the mark will affect the
market.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
16
1) ABSOLUTE GROUNDS
The following are the Absolute grounds expressed written in the
Intellectual Property Code Section 123.1:
(a) Consists of immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter, or matter
which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons,
living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them
into contempt or disrepute;
(b) Consists of the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the
Philippines or any of its political subdivisions, or of any foreign nation,
or any simulation thereof;
(c) Consists of a name, portrait or signature identifying a particular living
individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or
portrait of a deceased President of the Philippines, during the life of
his widow, if any, except by written consent of the widow;
(d) xxx
(e) (g) Is likely to mislead the public, particularly as to the nature, quality,
characteristics or geographical origin of the goods or services;
(f) (h) Consists exclusively of signs that are generic for the goods or
services that they seek to identify;
(g) Consists exclusively of signs or of indications that have become
customary or usual to designate the goods or services in everyday
language or in bona fide and established trade practice;
(h) Consists exclusively of signs or of indications that may serve in trade
to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value,
geographical origin, time or production of the goods or rendering of
the services, or other characteristics of the goods or services;
(i) Consists of shapes that may be necessitated by technical factors or
by the nature of the goods themselves or factors that affect their
intrinsic value;
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
17
(j) Consists of color alone, unless defined by a given form; or
(k) Is contrary to public order or morality.
Although not included in the list above, a mark which is not visible cannot
be registered in the Philippines. The discussion on visible perceptive marks has
already been discussed previously. (See discussion on Marks Must Be Visible)
A mark cannot be registered if it consists of immoral, deceptive or scandalous
matter, or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with
persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them
into contempt or disrepute;
The above provision can be divided into two parts (1) Disparaging marks
and (2) False connection.
(1) Disparaging marks
The Intellectual Property Office does not allow the registration of
disparaging terms or logos, unless, it can be proven that the general use of the
word can be used in a non-immoral or non-degrading manner.
No. Example
1
PUTO
(Puto in Spanish is an immoral word while Puto in Tagalog is a type
of steamed rice cake)
ALLOWABLE
2NIGGER
(This word is an extremely racist and disparaging word)
NOT
ALLOWABLE
3NEGRO
(Negro means black in spanish and is a place in the Philippines)ALLOWABLE
4
GAY
(Gay is both used both in a neutral and derogatory tone in the
Philippine)
ALLOWABLE
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
18
(2) False Connection Clause
The Intellectual Property Office does not allow the registration of terms or
symbols which falsely suggest a connection person, living or dead, institutions,
beliefs, or national symbols. Unless, it can be proven that the use of the mark will
not bear a logical or malicious connection between.
No. Examples
1
American Eagle mark is allowed even though American eagles are symbols associated
closely with American freedom. The registration of was also allowed despite the same
appearing in the Philippine President’s coat of arms.
2Dutch Boy mark is allowed even though it refers to a young Dutch national and even
though it was not proven that the products came from Germany.
3
“Filipinos” mark used for sweets by an American company was disallowed for False
Connection, Immorality and against public order since the mark tended (1) was not
connected to Filipinos (2) was not connected to the Philippines (3) improper cultural
appropriation and (4) the term is a functional.21)
Marks that contain a particular place, persons, living or dead, institutions,
beliefs, or national symbols may be allowed if the use of the same will not lead
to a false connection with the said place, persons, living or dead, institutions,
beliefs, or national symbols.
21) see “Filipino” case decided by ODG 2019
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
19
No. Examples of marks allowed:
1Precious Jesus registered for jewelries,
clothing and handicrafts
2 God Make Disciples registered for shirts
3 DEVIL MAY CRYDevil May Cry registered for games and
entertainment
4
Rizal Super registered for Cement
(Note: the figure on the background is the
Office Philippine monument of the Philippines
national hero Jose Rizal)
5 BUDDHA-BAR Buddha-bar registered for restaurant services
Author’s note : The IPOPHL usually refuses marks based on false
connection if the mark would tend to shed a negative light on a person, institution,
belief, or national symbol. Said clause is also used to deny marks which are
intentionally defraud customers by passing off the mark as something else.
Example
The previous mark “Buddha bar” was not allowed registration. However,
Buddha-bar was allowed registration.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
20
Connection to a person
If a name of a person is used, the IPOPHL will inquire whether or not you
are authorized to use the name of the person used. If you are using a name of
a real person, the IPOPHL will require you to submit an affidavit or evidence
showing that you were expressly allowed to use the name of that person or
allowed by the kin if the said person is deceased.
If the name used is the name of a fictitious person, you may submit an
affidavit or letter stating that the name indicated in the mark is a name of a
fictitious person.
Names of famous deceased persons are usually accepted as a valid mark
even without the authorization of the kin.
Example:
Source : IPOPHL database
Happy Einstein registered for Cellphone chargers
Author’s note : Even with authorization, the IPOPHL will not allow you to
register the mark if the use of the same will likely mislead the public as to the
origin of the goods or services.
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
21
Location or geographical sign as a trademark
Location or “Geographical signs are names, terms, figurative or mixed
signs that indicate or convey a sense of geographical origin. Geographical terms
include the names of any geographical location, not only political demarcations but
also the names of geographic or topographic phenomena including rivers,
mountains, deserts, forests, oceans, lakes, etc.”
Examples
America, Philippines, Georgia, Atlanta
Jeju, Gangnam, Taal Volcano
Source :
https://www.conceptdraw.com/How-To-Guide/geo-map-asia-philippines
Philippine Map
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
22
Source :
https://www.amazon.in/Samurai-Emblem-Kamon-Sticker-Mountain/dp/B00PFQPT8C
Drawing of Mt. Fuji
The IPOPHL in some cases will allow the registration of a location or
geographical sign if the same will not lead to a false or misleading connection and
if the same is not considered descriptive or generic.
No. Example
1An American company using the mark “Manila”
for american made chocolates.
NOT ALLOWABLE
(false advertising and immoral)
2Korean company using the mark “Oxo's Gangnam
Parmigiano-Reggiano”
NOT ALLOWABLE
(Parmigiano-Reggiano can only
be made in Italy)
3An American company using the mark “Oxo’s Manila
envelope” for american made Manila paper
ACCEPTABLE
(Manila paper is a generic term)
4Philippine company using the mark “Manila Paint” for
paintACCEPTABLE
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
23
The descriptiveness of a location or a geographical sign will be assessed
by the examiner using the following factors:
(a) the extent to which the relevant sector of the public in the country
know or recognize the sign as a geographical term or a sign that
indicates a geographical location;
(b) the extent to which that sector of the public associate the place
designated or indicated by the geographical sign with the goods or
services specified in the application.
According to the ASEAN Trademark Guidelines, “If the geographical sign
is not known to the public, or is known but is not recognized as an actual or
plausible place of origin of the specified goods or services, the sign should not
be regarded as geographically descriptive.”
No. Example
5
Philippine company using the mark
“ ” for cosmetic productsACCEPTABLE
6Korean company using the mark “ ”
for clothing and toys
ACCEPTABLE
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
24
Location or geographical names which do not “normally refer to a likely or
plausible place of origin of particular products, and cannot be regarded as
descriptive of any characteristic of the goods or services by reason of their
geographic origin.” This means that a location or geographical mark to be
registered must convey no likely connection to the place of origin.
No. Examples
1 Alaska for Milk ALLOWABLE
2 Mont Blanc for pens ALLOWABLE
3 Everest for cars ALLOWABLE
A mark cannot be registered if it consists of the flag or coat of arms or other
insignia of the Philippines or any its political subdivisions, or of any foreign nation,
or any simulation thereof;
A person may not use the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the
Philippines or any of its political subdivisions, or of any foreign nation, or any
simulation thereof:
Example:
Source : IPOPHL database
Combination of Brazil and Philippine Flag - NOT ALLOWABLE
No. Examples
1 “ATLANTIC” for prawn and salmon NOT ALLOWABLE
2 “PILSEN” for beer NOT ALLOWABLE
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
25
However, a person is allowed to use elements of the Philippine flag or
coat of arms or other insignia of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions,
or of any foreign nation.
Source : IPOPHL database
Mark inspired by the Philippine flag – ALLOWABLE
Consists of a name, portrait or signature identifying a particular living individual
except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased
President of the Philippines, during the life of his widow, if any, except by written
consent of the widow;
A person using a name of a real person, the IPOPHL will be required to
submit an affidavit or evidence showing that he or she was expressly allowed to
use the name of that person or allowed by the kin if the said person is deceased.
Is likely to mislead the public, particularly as to the nature, quality, characteristics
or geographical origin of the goods or services;
A person is not allowed to use indications which will mislead the public
as to the nature, quality, characteristics or geographical origin of the goods or
services.
No. Examples
1
An American company registers for the mark
“FILIPINOS”, goods bearing the mark are made
abroad
NOT ALLOWABLE
2Philippine company using “GUIMARAS” for mangoes
produced outside GuimarasNOT ALLOWABLE
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
26
Consists exclusively of signs that are generic for the goods or services that
they seek to identify;&
Consists exclusively of signs or of indications that have become customary or
usual to designate the goods or services in everyday language or in bona fide
and established trade practice;
What is a generic mark? A generic mark is a generic term which is
descriptive for the goods and/or services. They terms are understood among the
interested business circles, consumers and the public at large to identify goods
and services generically. Generic mark is “a sign that consists exclusively or
essentially of a word that is a generic, customary, common, scientific or technical
name or designation of a particular product or service, or of a category of goods
or services”.
No. Examples
3Company registers for the mark “2 Liters” used for
one liter bottlesNOT ALLOWABLE
4Korean company registers for the mark “Oxo's
Gangnam Parmigiano-Reggiano”
NOT ALLOWABLE
(Parmigiano-Reggiano can
only be made in Italy)
5Korean company registers for the mark “Oxo's
Gangnam Parmesan”
ACCEPTABLE
(Parmigiano-Reggiano can
only be made in Italy)
6
Philippine company registers “Axa
mango” along with a drawing of the map of Jeju” for
Philippine grown mangoes
NOT ALLOWABLE
7Company registers “Oxo’s Leather goods” for faux
leatherNOT ALLOWABLE
8 Philippine company registers “Axa pears” for apples NOT ALLOWABLE
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
27
No. Examples
1 “Apple” for Apples NOT ACCEPTABLE
2 “Hardware” for Hardware NOT ACCEPTABLE
3 “Milk tea” for Milk tea NOT ACCEPTABLE
4 “Driller” for Construction equipment NOT ACCEPTABLE
5 “Sheet” for Accounting textbook NOT ACCEPTABLE
Generic marks are disallowed registration because the marks need to
remain free for use by all. This is to ensure smooth transactions within the market
place and avoid the exclusive use of functional marks by third- parties. Note that
“The assessment of this ground for refusal necessarily requires consideration of
the specific goods or services, or type of goods or services, to which the sign
would apply. A term that is common or generic for a particular type of goods or
services may be highly distinctive for a different type of goods or services.”
No. Examples
1 “Apple” for Computers ACCEPTABLE
2 “Caterpillar” for Construction equipment ACCEPTABLE
Generic marks “applies not only to the common or standard names of
goods and services but also names that have become the usual o customary
designation, or have linguistically acquired a new meaning for a product or
service.” Marks which are used commonly in the usual trade or practice by custom
are called Customary Terms.
No. Examples
1 “Sunnies” for SunglassesNOT ACCEPTABLE
(Sunnies is a slang for sunglasses)
2 “Soba” for Noodles NOT ACCEPTABLE
3 “Sliders” for Burgers NOT ACCEPTABLE
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
28
Generic marks cover the scientific and technical designations of goods or
services. Even if the general public are not aware or familiar with the terms, the
same will still be considered generic because the informed business circles and
specialized consumers use the terms in generic manner. Nonetheless, this
limitation is industry or market specific. This is means that technical terms may
registered in industries which do not use the term in a technical manner.
No. Examples
1 “Lex” for Law firms NOT ACCEPTABLE
2 “Lux” for Lighting NOT ACCEPTABLE
3 “Tussin” for Cough syrup NOT ACCEPTABLE
4 “Resistor” for Electronics NOT ACCEPTABLE
5 “Levo or L-” for Pharmaceutical products NOT ACCEPTABLE
6 “Comedone extractor” for Beauty products NOT ACCEPTABLE
7 “Lux” for Apartments ACCEPTABLE
8 “Lex” for Lighting ACCEPTABLE
9 “Resistor” for Entertainment ACCEPTABLE
It is important to note that the limitation on generic marks apply only if
the mark is exclusively comprised of generic or customary signs. This means that
a person may include a generic term in his or her mark as long as the generic
term is accompanied or is sufficiently modified by other signs and symbols,
making the mark as a whole distinctive.
Nonetheless, the person using a generic or customary term must be
DISCLAIMED. A disclaimed term will signify that the term cannot be exclusively
used or appropriated by the applicant or registrant.
No. Examples
1 OXO's Korean PlumACCEPTABLE
(Disclaimed terms : KOREAN and PLUM)
2 Korean Plum NOT ACCEPTABLE
3 Apple ComputerACCEPTABLE
(Disclaimed term : Computer)
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
29
Can I register a generic mark if the same is in foreign characters or is a
transliteration of a foreign character?
No, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines does not allow the
registration of a generic or customary foreign term when used alone.
No. Examples
1 한국 자두 NOT ACCEPTABLE
2 OXO's 한국 자두ACCEPTABLE
(Disclaimed characters: 한국 and 자두)
Can a figurative mark be considered a generic or customary mark?
Yes, figurative marks can be considered as a generic or customary mark.
“Certain figurative signs have, by convention or by custom, a particular meaning
that is widely understood in the relevant business circles and by the consumers,
or by a significant portion of consumers, in respect of all or specific goods or
services. As with common or generic names of goods and services, such
figurative signs cannot function as trademarks in respect of the goods or services
that they identify.”
Examples
Source :
https://www.wbbarber.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1000x1000-01-1.png
Image of a barber’s pole for barber shops - NOT ALLOWABLE
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
30
Source: Wikipedia
Caduceus staff for medical institutions - NOT ALLOWABLE
Consists exclusively of signs or of indications that may serve in trade to
designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical
origin, time or production of the goods or rendering of the services, or other
characteristics of the goods or services;
Descriptive Mark
Descriptive marks are “signs consisting of one or more words that
describe, in particular, the nature, subject matter, quality, quantity, size, purpose,
use or any other characteristic of the specified goods or services should be
objected by the examiner.”
In order to ascertain if a word is descriptive, the word must be considered
in conjunction with the goods or services for which the mark will be used. Words
that relate to value or size are usually treated as descriptive words.
No. Example
1 “1 L” mark for water bottles
2 “Big” mark for food
3 “Cheap” mark for clothes
A word that does not relate to the characteristics or nature of goods or
services can be considered distinctive with respect to other goods and services.
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
31
No. Example
1 “Horror” for movies NOT ALLOWABLE
2 “Horror” for carbonated drinks ALLOWABLE
Author’s note: Nice class is not a reliable determinant if a mark would be
considered as descriptive.
No. Example (Nice Class: 9)
1 “HORROR” for Nice Class 9: Software (Horror Game) NOT ALLOWABLE
2 “HORROR” for Nice Class 9: Hardware for optical machines ALLOWABLE
Below are the different types of marks which are considered descriptive:
No. Types of mark Example
1 Descriptive as the nature“Softer” for pillows
“24-7” for computer rental shops / PC bangs
2 Descriptive as to the subject matter“Medical” for books
“RPG” for games
3 Descriptive as to quality
“Fresh” for meats
“Deluxe”, “Best”, “Good”, for goods and
services
4 Descriptive as to quantity“1000 mg” for medicines
“1 L” for beverages
5 Descriptive as to size“BIG” for food
“JUNIOR” for food
6 Descriptive as to purpose or use“Strike” for matches
“Sanitary” for cleaning products
7 Descriptive as to value “2 for 1” for goods
There is a fine line between a mark being considered generic, customary
versus descriptive. Due the hardship involves in determining if a mark is generic,
customary, or descriptive, examiners often interchangeably use generic,
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
32
customary, and descriptive grounds in one argument. This means that there is a
possibility that a descriptive mark will be considered as a generic or customary
mark and vice versa.
Trademark examiners often also disregard any minor changes to the
descriptive mark, such as wrong spelling or using a certain font. This means that
minute changes will often not remove the possibility that the trademark examiner
will consider the mark to be descriptive.
Example
Krocodile - for crocodile meat
Krunch - for rice crispy treats
Unlike generic or customary marks, descriptive marks CAN be registered
if the applicant can prove that the applicant has at least “5” years of uninterrupted
and exclusive use of the descriptive term.
However, the “5” years of uninterrupted and exclusive use of the
descriptive term does not guarantee registration of the mark. Due to the thin line
separating generic, customary, and descriptive marks, there is a chance that the
descriptive mark will be considered as a generic or customary mark by the
examiner. In addition, functionally descriptive marks are still not allowed
registration.
No. Example
1 “Crunch” for chocolates ALLOWABLE
2 “3 in 1” for Coffee NOT ALLOWABLE
Author’s note : Having a highly descriptive mark is not advisable. These
types of trademarks, such as Nestle’s “CRUNCH” mark, have to constantly litigate
to protect the mark against third parties. This is due to the fact the mark is highly
descriptive of the characteristics of a ton of food products.
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
33
If my mark is descriptive in the foreign language but not when translated
directly to English or Tagalog, will the IPOPHL consider it as descriptive?
Yes, the IPOPHL will generally still consider the transliteration or
translation of a foreign character as descriptive.
If I misspell the descriptive mark or add embellishments, will the IPOPHL
approve the registration of the mark?
Depends, if the addition or alteration is sufficiently distinctive then the
IPOPHL will allow the registration of the mark. If the alteration is negligible the
IPOPHL will still most likely disallow the registration of the mark.
Thus, it is better to avoid using descriptive terms as the basis of the mark
altogether.
Does a combination of two descriptive words automatically make it
distinct?
No, the combination of two or more descriptive words can still end up
being descriptive.
No. Example
1 TWIST AND POUR for Paint NOT ALLOWABLE
2 CLEARWIFI for telecommunications NOT ALLOWABLE
3 TRUSTEDLINK for e-commerce software NOT ALLOWABLE
In order to be registrable, the combination of descriptive terms or signs
must be sufficiently distinctive.
Example
BANNAPPLE - for Banana Apple Pies
MR. DIY - for hardware stores
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
34
Laudatory descriptive terms
Common laudatory terms and signs are treated by the IPOPHL as
descriptive or at the very least terms which lack distinctive characteristics.
Laudatory terms are terms which “express desirable or superior characteristics of
the relevant goods or services. They apply or refer directly to the goods or
services.”
Example
SUPER / SUPREME / BEST
EXTRA FINE / FIRST / PRIME
MODERN / ULTIMATE / PREMIUM
(GOLD SEALS)
Terms which paint the mark in positive light but does not directly describe
the goods or services can be registered.
No. Example
1 MASTER ROAST for Coffee ALLOWABLE
2 FAMILY BANK for banks ALLOWABLE
3 BEST BUY for retail stores ALLOWABLE
Author’s note : Stay away from common laudatory terms since these do
not add value to the mark.
Figurative Descriptive marks
Figurative marks can be considered descriptive if the figurative mark looks
like a standard or basic shape of the goods or services.
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
35
Example
Source : ASEAN Examination Guide
Horse figure for horse equipment - NOT ALLOWABLE
Nonetheless, a figurative mark can overcome descriptiveness if the
figurative mark is “different from the usual aspect or shape of the relevant goods
or of good related to the specified services, or is stylized in a manner that
significantly departs from the standard, identical representation of the goods or
services.”
Example
Source : ASEAN Examination Guide
Horse figure for horse equipment – ALLOWABLE
Consists of shapes that may be necessitated by technical factors or by the
nature of the goods themselves or factors that affect their intrinsic value;
Shape marks are not allowed if the same is functional in nature.
Example
Standard shape of beer bottle - Beer
Standard shape of teddy bear - toys
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
36
A mark consisting only of simple geometrical shapes are also not allowed
registration. These marks are not allowed registration since they are “devoid of any
feature that will give it a special appearance, or attract the attention of consumers
when the sign is used in trade, will generally not be distinctive and cannot
function as a trademark.”
Example
# @ !Consists of color alone, unless defined by a given form
Colors cannot be registered as a valid mark without the color being
attached to a particular form. This means that a person may not claim certain
colors for his exclusive use. It does not matter if said person invented or found
the said color.
Example
Tiffany Blue
Chapter Ⅰ. Introduction
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
37
Nonetheless, a person may register a color as a valid mark if said person
can prove that the color has acquired secondary meaning. This means that the
color is uninterruptedly and exclusively use, and known to be attributed to said
business in the Philippine market for at least “5” consecutive years.
Is contrary to public order or morality
According to ASEAN Trademark guidelines, “‘Public policy’ and ‘public
order’ refer to the general legal framework of a particular State, and to the
rationale and purpose underlying that legal framework. The legal framework
includes, in addition to positive legislation and executive provisions in force in a
country, international treaties and other international commitments adopted by a
State, as well as established case law. These legal sources reflect and express the
policy, basic principles and values of the State.”
While “‘Morality’ is a set of socially recognized principles that determine
practices and rules of conduct within a particular society or community. These
principles and rules are not cast in positive legislation or executive norms, and
may vary over time. They may be quite different in different countries or within
different regions and communities inside the same country. Moral principles and
rules reflect values that a national society or community wants to uphold. They are
applied alongside positive legal norms that generally will not deal with the type of
issues or details that are the subject matter of ‘morality’.”
How do I know if my mark is immoral or against public policy?
Provocative, lewd, foul, and debasing language is generally not accepted
by the IPOPHL.
Example
FUCK / WANKER / NIGGER
However, marks which are subject to double meaning or different
interpretations may be registered.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
38
Example
BOBO
(Stupid in Tagalog - regular name outside Philippines)
PUTO
(Foul word in Spanish - rice cake in Tagalog)
NEGRO
(Foul word in USA - means black in Tagalog and a location in the Philippine)
Section 10. When trademark’s exclusive right is created?
“The owner of a registered mark shall have the exclusive right to prevent
all third parties not having the owner’s consent from using in the course of trade
identical or similar signs or containers for goods or services which are identical or
similar to those in respect of which the trademark is registered where such use
would result in a likelihood of confusion. In case of the use, of an identical sign
for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be presumed” (2017
Trademark IRR)
Section 11. Term of Protection
Trademark registration last “10” years counted from registration. However,
you have to maintain the mark by submitting occasionally proof that the mark is
being used in the Philippines
Chapter Ⅱ. Philippines’ Trademark principle
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
41
Section 1. Principle of first to file rule
The Philippines follows the first to file rule. This means that the mark with
the earliest filing or priority date will block all subsequently filed applications. This
means that the first filer will be given the rights to the trademark.
Filing date
Subject to priority right, the filing date of an application shall be the date
on which the IPOPHL received the trademark application and the filing fee.
Priority right / Priority Date
A priority right / date is based on the first filing of the mark in another
country. The subsequent application in the Philippines will be regarded as if they
had been filed on the same day as the first foreign application. However, the
subsequent application in the Philippines must claim the priority right using the
earliest application and must be filed within “6” months from the earliest
application in the foreign country.
Section 2. International treaties that Philippines joined
Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International
Registration of Marks
The Madrid System allows the filing of marks in multiple Madrid member
jurisdictions using one application.
Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization
Treaty which created and established the World Intellectual Property
Organization. WIPO is an intergovernmental organization which in 1974 became
one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations system.
Ⅱ Philippines’ Trademark principle
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
42
The Paris Convention
The Paris Convention provides the basis for the use of "Priority Right" and
“National Treatment”. It also prescribes common rules provisions such as
protection of well-known marks, indications of source, protection of trade names,
and unfair competition.
Chapter Ⅲ. Application for Trademark Registration
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
45
Section 1. Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL)
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) which shall have the following
functions:
(a) Examine applications for grant of letters patent for inventions and
register utility models and industrial designs;
(b) Examine applications for the registration of marks, geographic
indication, integrated circuits;
(c) Register technology transfer arrangements and settle disputes
involving technology transfer payments covered by the provisions on
Voluntary Licensing and develop and implement strategies to promote
and facilitate technology transfer;
(d) Promote the use of patent information as a tool for technology
development;
(e) Publish regularly in its own publication the patents, marks, utility
models and industrial designs, issued and approved, and the
technology transfer arrangements registered;
(f) Administratively adjudicate contested proceedings affecting
intellectual property rights; and
(g) Coordinate with other government agencies and the private sector
efforts to formulate and implement plans and policies to strengthen
the protection of intellectual property rights in the country.
Address : Intellectual Property Center, #28 Upper McKinley Road, McKinley
Hill Town Center, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City 1634 Philippines
Email : General information - ask@ipophil.gov.ph
Bureau of Trademarks - bot@ipophil.gov.ph
Documentation, Information, & Technology Transfer Bureau - dittb@ipophil.gov.ph
Contact No. : +63 (2) 7238 6300
Ⅲ Application for Trademark Registration
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
46
Section 2. Pre-filing of Trademark
A. What is a Trademark search, why is it necessary?
Trademark search is necessary in order to determine if the proposed mark
can be registered. This is done to prevent unnecessary wastage of time and
money on applications that cannot be registered.
B. Trademark Search site
The IPOPHL, uses the following databases:
WIPO GLOBAL BRAND DATABASE : https://www3.wipo.int/branddb/ph/en/
ASEAN TM-VIEWER: http://www.asean-tmview.org/tmview/welcome
Section 3. Application of Trademark
A. Filing process
Only online filing is allowed by the Intellectual Property Office
You may access the online application portal at the website of IPOPHL at
https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/ SERVICES > e-Services > eTM File (Trademark)
https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/etm-file-trademark/
B. General Filing Requirements
Name of the Applicant/Registrant
Type of entity of the Applicant
Name and address of the resident agent, if applicable.
Address of the Applicant/Registrant
Reproduction / design of the mark being applied for (includes the claim of
color)
Description of the mark.
Chapter Ⅲ. Application for Trademark Registration
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
47
Disclaimer, if applicable.
Nice Classification of Goods and Services and exact description of where the
goods are going to be used or where the services are going to be rendered
Translation and Transliteration, if not in English or Tagalog.
Priority claim and priority document, if any. With English translation if not in
English
Power of Attorney
For reference, the old application form may be accessed:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1amZi1FD5n1he_bbQbT8goFDo8u5tNSQ1/view
Please note that application forms are no longer accepted by the IPOPHL.
Trademarks must now be filed using e-TM filing, the link for the e-TM filing is
provided below.
E-TM filing link : https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/etm-file-trademark/
Local address is required?
Local Address is not required, it is only required for local authorized
representatives of the applicant/registrant
C. Who can file a Trademark Application?
Any person, whether natural or juridical, who is a national or who is
domiciled or has a real and effective industrial establishment in a country which
is a party to any convention, treaty or agreement relating to intellectual property
rights or the repression of unfair competition, to which the Philippines is also a
party, or extends reciprocal rights to nationals of the Philippines by law, shall be
entitled to benefits to the extent necessary to give effect to any provision of such
convention, treaty or reciprocal law, in addition to the rights to which any owner
of an intellectual property right is otherwise entitled by Philippine Intellectual
Property Code.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
48
D. Timeline for process
The estimated turnaround time for the filing of the application up to the
issuance of the certificate of registration, given that no office actions nor
oppositions are raised, is around 3-4 months.
E. Fee
The IPOPHL has provided their new schedule of fees last 2017. You may
access the revised version of the fees at the IPOPHL’s website:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/138zRWPEofZJCc5TzJvJ4hwUx8UPM-cPX/view
You may also refer to Annex for the schedule of fees.
Please note that the above only covers IPOPHL’s fees, it does not cover
your lawyers or resident agent’s professional fees.
F. Claim of Priority
Rule 202 in the IPOPHL Memorandum Circular No. 17-010 states that “an
application for registration of a mark filed in the Philippines by a person referred
to in Rule 201, and who previously duly filed an application for registration of the
same mark in one of those countries, shall be considered as filed as of the day
the application was first filed in the foreign country.”
Rule 203 further explains the requirements for claiming the priority right:
“An application with a claim of priority right must be filed within six (6)
months from the date the earliest foreign application was filed. If the fact
of filing and/ or registration is verifiable from the official website of the
foreign intellectual property office where the earliest application was filed,
the applicant is not required to submit a certified copy of the foreign
application or registration that serves as basis of the claim of priority right.
Otherwise, the applicant shall be required to submit a photocopy of the
foreign registration and an English translation, if necessary, within six
months from the mailing date of the office action of the Examiner
requiring the same, subject to extension as provided under Rule 615.”
Chapter Ⅲ. Application for Trademark Registration
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
49
G. How to register trademark by Madrid protocol
As stated in IPOPHL Memorandum Circular No. 17-011 (“PHILIPPINE
REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE MADRID
AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION MARKS OF
2017”) the requirements for registering a trademark registration via the Madrid
Protocol are the following:
(a) name and address and contact details of the applicant or the address
and contact details of his representative, if any;
(b) the Designated Contracting Parties;
(c) reproduction of the mark; and
(d) indication of the goods and services for which registration of the mark
is sought
The above-mentioned information can be filled up the in Madrid
Application Form or the MM2 Form which can be accessed in this link :
https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/madrid/en/forms/docs/form_mm2-edita
ble1.pdf
H. What is a benefit from Paris Convention?
When a foreign application is filed under the Paris Convention in a country
which has ratified this treaty and within the applicable grace period, it is filed with
a claim to "priority". That is, the application in the foreign country will be treated
as if it had been filed on the same date as the first application filed in another
Paris Convention member country. Another way of expressing this concept is to
say that the foreign patent application has an effective filing date which is the
same as the actual filing date of the first application.22)
22) https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/THE_PARIS_CONVENTION.htm#:~:text=When%20a%20foreign
%20application%20is,a%20claim%20to%20%22priority%22.&text=The%20benefit%20of%20this%20clai
m,apparent%20to%20Intellectual%20Property%20lawyers.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
50
Section 4: Additional Requirement for Trademark Registration
A. Statement of Use
The IPOPHL does not require prior use or a statement of use before or
during the trademark application process.
B. Clear Specification of goods / Services
For specificity and accuracy purposes, the applicant can check their goods
and services in the following hyperlinks:
https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr/
https://webaccess.wipo.int/mgs/
C. Submission of the Power of Attorney
A signed Power of Attorney must be submitted to the resident agent. The
resident agent in turn will submit said Power of Attorney to the IPOPHL. Without
the Power of Attorney, the resident agent cannot act in your behalf.
Section 5: Examination (Office Action)
A. IPOPHL’s Examinations for trademark registration (Formality Examination
and Substantive Examination)
The Intellectual Property Office’s Actions are issued either due to a formal
defect or due to a substantive examination.
Office Actions relating to formal defects are issued in order to complete
missing or defective information or documents in the application. The applicant
will be given two months from the electronic signature, to complete the missing
information or document or fix the said information or document.
For priority right, if the foreign application has not been registered at the
time of allowance or if the foreign intellectual property office does not have an
online trademarks database, the Examiner shall, in the Notice of Allowance and
Chapter Ⅲ. Application for Trademark Registration
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
51
Deferment, require the applicant to submit a photocopy of the foreign registration
within six (6) months from mailing date of such notice
Substantive examination Office Actions are registrability reports, which
provisionally or finally, deny a registration of a mark due to absolute or relative
grounds (see Section 123.1 of the Intellectual Property Code). See discussion
regarding Absolute Grounds and Relative Grounds/ Similarity issues.
The applicant will be given two months from the electronic signature to submit
his response to the Office Action. The response must completely, clearly indicate,
and prove that the mark to be applied does not fall under any of the grounds
under Section 123.1 of the Intellectual Property Code.
Can I request for an extension to submit my response?
You may request for a two-month extension to submit your response
subject to payment of required fees If you still need additional time, you may
subsequently request for another two-month extension again subject to fees.
For submission of priority documents, you may request an additional
period of one year.
B. What should applicant do when the examination report/office action (with
rejection) is received?
If you receive an examination report or an office action, you should ask
assistance from you lawyer on the next steps which should be taken. Please note
that responses of non-Philippine residents will not be processed by the IPOPHL
until a resident agent has been appointed.
Section 6: Trademark Publication (Opposition)
A. Opposition procedure
Once the Verified Notice of Opposition is timely and properly filed with
the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA), a Notice to Answer will be served to the
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
52
Respondent-Applicant to file their Verified Answer within thirty (30) days from
their receipt. The Respondent-Applicant can request for a maximum period of one
hundred twenty (120) days from receipt of the Notice to Answer within which to
file the same (Three “30 day” Extension Request to File Answer). After which, the
case shall be submitted for Mediation. If the parties fail to settle, Preliminary
Conference shall be held, and the parties shall be ordered to submit their
respective Position Papers. The case shall then be submitted for Decision before
the Adjudication Officer of the BLA - Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines
(IPOPHL). Said Decision may be appealed to the Director of the BLA, then to the
Director General of the IPOPHL, which can be further appealed to the Court of
Appeals (CA), and finally to the Supreme Court (SC), as illustrated in the attached
flow chart:
In all cases, the Opposition shall be verified for and on behalf of the
Petitioner by a specifically authorized person who has personal knowledge of the
facts required to be established by the document.
Please note that the rules on inter partes cases requires that the Verified
Opposition shall be filed together with the affidavits of witnesses and all
documentary exhibits. Aside from the SPA and the Secretary’s Certificate, the
originals of documents submitted can be filed during Preliminary Conference.
Chapter Ⅲ. Application for Trademark Registration
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
53
Section 7. Post-filing
A. Renewal, Assignment/Transmission, Registered User and Post Registration
Changes of Registered User
(1) Renewal of Trademark(s)
Request for Renewal. - A registration may be renewed for periods of ten
(10) years at its expiration upon filing of a request and payment of the prescribed
fee. The request shall contain the following indications and/or supporting
documents:
(a) An indication that renewal is sought;
(b) The name, address and other contact details of the registrant or
successor-in-interest, hereafter referred to as the "right holder";
(c) The registration number;
(d) The filing date of the application which resulted in the registration to
be renewed;
(e) Where the right holder has an authorized representative or agent, the
name and address of that representative or agent;
(f) The recorded goods or services for which the renewal is requested,
grouped according to the classes of the Nice Classification; and
(g) A signature by the right holder or the right holder's authorized
representative or agent.
In case of material variations of the mark, a new application must be filed.
When to File Request for Renewal?
The request for renewal may be made at any time within six (6) months
before the expiration of the period for which the registration was issued or
renewed, or within six (6) months after such expiration, subject to the payment
of the prescribed additional fee or surcharge.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
54
Renewal Filed by Person Who is Not the Resident Agent of Record
If the registrant, assignee or other owner of the mark which is the subject
of a petition for renewal registration is not domiciled in the Philippines, and if the
petition for renewal is filed by a person who is not the authorized representative
or agent of record, the power of attorney appointing the person filing the petition
as the representative of the registrant must be filed and, upon payment of the
required fee, must be recorded before the Office can act upon the petition for
renewal.
Certificate of Renewal of Registration
The Office shall issue a certificate of renewal upon payment of the
required fee for the issuance thereof. The issuance of the certificate of renewal
shall be published in the IPO eGazette and shall be entered in the records of this
Office.
The certificate of renewal of registration shall contain the following:
(a) registration number;
(b) the mark subject of the renewal;
(c) the date of original registration and renewal registration;
(d) the duration of the renewal registration;
(e) all the data required to be contained in a certificate of registration
provided in these Regulations including any limitation contained in the
order of the Director approving the renewal of the registration.
(2) Assignment & transmission of a registered trademarks
An application for registration of a mark, or its registration, may be
assigned or transferred with or without the transfer of the business using the
mark. Such assignment or transfer shall, however, be null and void if it is liable
to mislead the public, particularly as to the nature, source, manufacturing process,
characteristics, or suitability of purpose, of the goods or services to which the
mark is applied.
Chapter Ⅲ. Application for Trademark Registration
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
55
Form of Assignment or Transfer
The assignment of the application for registration of a mark, or of its
registration, shall be notarized and require the signature of the applicant,
registrant, or the assignee of record in case of subsequent assignment. Transfers
by mergers or other forms of succession may be evidenced by the deed of
merger or by any document supporting such transfer.
Recordal of Assignment or Transfer
Assignments and transfers shall have no effect against third parties until
they are recorded at the Office. Assignments and transfers of registrations and
applications for registration shall be recorded upon payment of the required fee.
Assignment, Other Instruments Affecting the Registration, or License, and
Translation, to be Submitted in Original Copy.
The original document of assignment, other instrument or license and its
translation, if necessary, is required to be submitted to and shall be retained by
the IPOPHL A notice of recordal shall accordingly be issued to the party filing the
instrument.
Date of Recordal of Documents
The date of recordal of an assignment, license or other document is the
date of receipt of the instrument in proper form and payment of the prescribed
fees.
A New Certificate of Registration will be Issued to Assignee
Upon written request of an assignee of record, and upon payment of the
required fee, a new certificate of registration for the unexpired period of the
registration shall be issued to the assignee.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
56
Action may be Taken by Assignee of Record in Any Proceeding in the
Office
Any action in any proceeding in the IPOPHL which may or must be taken
by a registrant or applicant may be taken by the assignee to the exclusion of the
original owner, registrant, applicant or earlier assignee, provided the assignment
has been recorded. Unless such assignment has been recorded, no assignee will
be recognized to act on the application or registration.
Clearance of Trademark License Agreement Prior to Recordal
Any trademark license agreement shall be applied for clearance with the
Documentation Information and Technology Transfer Bureau (DITTB) of the Office
and shall be recorded only upon certification by the Director of the DITTB that the
agreement does not violate the prohibited clauses and that it includes the
mandatory provisions under Sections 86 and 87, respectively, of the IP Code.
In order to ascertain whether or not the assignment violates Sections 86
and 87, please contact your lawyer. If the assignment violates Sections 86 and 87,
the lawyer will assist you in drafting the assignment.
(3) Registered users
As long as the trademark owner allows the use of the mark to third
persons, registration of the agreement is not necessary in order effect the
agreement. However, exclusive licensing agreements which are not registered
with the IPOPHL is not considered binding on third parties.
(4) Post-registration amendments
Only change of name, change of address, change of resident agent, and
assignment are allowed. No other post-registration amendments are allowed.
Chapter Ⅲ. Application for Trademark Registration
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
57
B. Declaration of Actual Use
In order to maintain your trademark registration, you must submit the
notarized Declaration of Actual Use (“DAU”) form along with proof that you are
using the mark in Philippine commerce.
You may submit any of the following as proof of use:
(a) labels of the mark as these are used;
(b) downloaded pages from the website clearly showing that the goods
are being sold or the services are being rendered in the Philippines;
(c) photographs (including digital photographs printed on ordinary paper)
of goods bearing marks as these are actually used or of the stamped
or marked container of goods and of the establishment/s where the
services are being rendered;
(d) brochures or advertising materials showing the actual use of the
mark on the goods being sold or services being rendered in the
Philippines;
(e) receipts or invoices of sale of the goods or services rendered or
other similar evidence of use, showing that the goods are placed on
the market or the services are available in the Philippines;
(f) copies of contracts for services showing the use of the mark.
Can my lawyer sign and notarize the DAU form?
Yes, you may allow the trademark lawyer to execute and notarize the
Declaration of Actual Use form in your behalf. However, this will entail addition
cost.
Do I have to submit evidence for each and every good and service listed
in my trademark?
No, you only need to submit “1” proof of use per Nice Class.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
58
No. Example
1 Nice Class 9Software
Hardware computers for ATMS
2 Nice Class 35Advertising for others
Online Retail services
When should I submit the DAU form and proof of use?
(1) Within three (3) years from the filing date of the application;
(2) Within one (1) year from the fifth anniversary of the registration;
(3) Within one (1) year from date of renewal;
(4) Within one (1) year from the fifth anniversary of each renewal;
Note: the trademark lawyer will timely remind you if there is upcoming
DAU due.
Can I recycle previously submitted evidence or proof of use?
No, the Intellectual Property Office does not accept recycled evidence.
New evidence of use must be submitted each time.
What if I fail to submit the DAU form or proof of use?
Your mark will be removed from the trademark registry. If the mark is
removed from the trademark registry due to non-submission of the DAU form
and/or proof of use or non-compliance with the prescribed evidence of use, the
only solution to regain protection is to refile the trademark application.
You may also submit Declaration of Non-Use if you prove that the
non-use is due to act of god or government restriction.
Can I file all the types of Declaration of Actual Use all at the same time?
No, the IPOPHL does not allow the filing of the different types of
Declaration of Actual Use at the same time.
Chapter Ⅲ. Application for Trademark Registration
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
59
Section 8. IPOPHL’s Trademark application and registration statistics23)
How many trademark applications were in the last “5” years?
27,122 applications in 2015,
27,188 applications in 2016,
31,973 applications in 2017,
35,674 applications in 2018, and
39,399 applications in 2019.
How many trademark applications, direct and Madrid filings were filed by
foreigners in the last “5” year in the Philippines?
12,341 applications in 2015,
11, 930 applications in 2016,
13, 412 applications in 2017,
14,060 applications in 2018, and
15,894 applications in 2019.
How may trademark applications were granted trademark registrations in
the last “5” years?
22,002 in 2015
27,014 in 2016
21,966 in 2017
25,639 in 2018
28,167 in 2019
23) https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/reference/statistics/
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
60
The statistics above would show that around 75% of the total filed
application are granted trademark registration. Please note that the chances of
registration of an application greatly varies per application.
Chapter Ⅳ. Utilization of Trademark
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
63
Section 1. Licensing, franchising, sale, rent
As long as the trademark owner allows the use of the marks, registration
of the agreement is not necessary in order effect the agreement (licensing,
franchising, sale, rent). However, exclusive licensing agreements which are not
registered with the Documentation, Information, Technology Transfer Bureau
(DITTB) is not considered binding on third parties. Please note that rent is treated
as licensing / franchising.
Below is a Supreme Court case explaining the difference between
franchising and employment.
G.R. No. 16994, March 12, 2014
TESORA V. METRO MANILA RETREADERS
Facts : Ashmor M. Tesoro, Pedro Ang, and Gregorio Sharp used to work as
salesmen for Metro Manila Retreaders, Inc., Northern Luzon Retreaders, Inc., or
Power Tire and Rubber Corporation, apparently sister companies, collectively
called "Bandag." Bandag offered repair and retread services for used tires. In
1998, however, Bandag developed a franchising scheme that would enable
others to operate tire and retreading businesses using its trade name and
service system.
Ashmor M. Tesoro, Pedro Ang, and Gregorio Sharp quit their jobs as salesmen
and entered into separate Service Franchise Agreements (SFAs) with Bandag
for the operation of their respective franchises. Under the SFAs, Bandag would
provide funding support to Ashmor M. Tesoro, Pedro Ang, and Gregorio subject
to a regular or periodic liquidation of their revolving funds. The expenses out
of these funds would be deducted from Ashmor M. Tesoro, Pedro Ang, and
Gregorio’s sales to determine their incomes.
At first, Ashmor M. Tesoro, Pedro Ang, and Gregorio Sharp managed and
operated their respective franchises without any problem. After a length of
time, however, they began to default on their obligations to submit periodic
Ⅳ Utilization of Trademark
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
64
liquidations of their operational expenses in relation to the revolving funds
Bandag provided them. Consequently, Bandag terminated their respective SFA.
Aggrieved, Ashmor M. Tesoro, Pedro Ang, and Gregorio Sharp filed a complaint
for constructive dismissal, non-payment of wages, incentive pay, 13th month
pay and damages against Bandag with the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). Ashmor M. Tesoro, Pedro Ang, and Gregorio Sharp
contend that, notwithstanding the execution of the SFAs, they remained to be
Bandag’s employees, the SFAs being but a circumvention of their status as
regular employees.
For its part, Bandag pointed out that Ashmor M. Tesoro, Pedro Ang, and
Gregorio Sharp freely resigned from their employment and decided to avail
themselves of the opportunity to be independent entrepreneurs under the
franchise scheme that Bandag had. Thus, no employer-employee relationship
existed between Ashmor M. Tesoro, Pedro Ang, Gregorio and Bandag.
Issue : Whether or not Ashmor M. Tesoro, Pedro Ang, and Gregorio Sharp
remained to be Bandag’s salesmen under the franchise scheme it entered into
with them.
Held : Franchising is a business method of expansion that allows an individual
or group of individuals to market a product or a service and to use of the
patent, trademark, trade name and the systems prescribed by the owner. In
this case, Bandag’s SFAs created on their faces an arrangement that gave
Ashmor M. Tesoro, Pedro Ang, and Gregorio the privilege to operate and
maintain Bandag branches in the way of franchises, providing tire repair and
retreading services, with Ashmor M. Tesoro, Pedro Ang, and Gregorio earning
profits based on the performance of their branches.
When Ashmor M. Tesoro, Pedro Ang, and Gregorio Sharp agreed to operate
Bandag’s franchise branches in different parts of the country, they knew that
this substantially changed their former relationships. They were to cease
working as Bandag’s salesmen, the positions they occupied before they
ventured into running separate Bandag branches. They were to cease receiving
salaries or commissions. Their incomes were to depend on the profits they
made. Yet, Ashmor M. Tesoro, Pedro Ang, and Gregorio Sharp did not then
Chapter Ⅳ. Utilization of Trademark
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
65
Section 2. Procedure
Trademark license agreement clearance is filed with the Documentation
Information and Technology Transfer Bureau. The agreement will be recorded only
upon certification by the Director of the DITTB that the agreement does not violate
the prohibited clauses and that it includes the mandatory provisions under
Sections 87 and 88, respectively, of the IP Code. The DITTB requires at least “2”
notarized copies of the agreement.
The following the Mandatory and Prohibited Provisions in the IP Code:
Sec. 87. Prohibited Clauses. - Except in cases under Section 91, the
following provisions shall be deemed prima facie to have an adverse on
competition and trade:
87.1. Those which impose upon the licensee the obligation to acquire
from a specific source capital goods, intermediate products, raw materials,
and other technologies, or of permanently employing personnel indicated
by the licensor;
87.2. Those pursuant to which the licensor reserves the right to fix the
sale or resale prices of the products manufactured on the basis of the license;
87.3. Those that contain restrictions regarding the volume and structure
of production;
complain of constructive dismissal. They took their chances, ran their branches,
Gregorio Sharp in La Union for several months and Ashmor Tesoro in Baguio
and Pedro Ang in Pangasinan for over a year. Clearly, their belated claim of
constructive dismissal is quite hollow.
But uniformity in prices, quality of services, and good business practices are
the essence of all franchises. A franchisee will damage the franchisor’s
business if he sells at different prices, renders different or inferior services, or
engages in bad business practices. These business constraints are needed to
maintain collective responsibility for faultless and reliable service to the same
class of customers for the same prices.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
66
87.4 Those that prohibit the use of competitive technologies in a
non-exclusive technology transfer agreement;
87.5. Those that establish a full or partial purchase option in favor of the
licensor;
87.6. Those that obligate the licensee to transfer for free to the licensor
the inventions or improvements that may be obtained through the use of
the licensed technology;
87.7. Those that require payment of royalties to the owners of patents for
patents which are not used;
87.8. Those that prohibit the licensee to export the licensed product
unless justified for the protection of the legitimate interest of the licensor
such as exports to countries where exclusive licenses to manufacture
and/or distribute the licensed product(s) have already been granted;
87.9. Those which restrict the use of the technology supplied after the
expiration of the technology transfer arrangement, except in cases of early
termination of the technology transfer arrangement due to reason(s)
attributable to the licensee;
87.10. Those which require payments for patents and other industrial
property rights after their expiration, termination arrangement;
87.11. Those which require that the technology recipient shall not contest
the validity of any of the patents of the technology supplier;
87.12. Those which restrict the research and development activities of the
licensee designed to absorb and adapt the transferred technology to local
conditions or to initiate research and development programs in connection
with new products, processes or equipment;
87.13. Those which prevent the licensee from adapting the imported
technology to local conditions, or introducing innovation to it, as long as
it does not impair the quality standards prescribed by the licensor;
Chapter Ⅳ. Utilization of Trademark
Intro
ductio
nP
hilippines Trademark principle
Application for Tradem
ark R
egistrationA
dditional Requirem
ents for Tradem
ark Registration
67
87.14. Those which exempt the licensor for liability for non-fulfillment of
his responsibilities under the technology transfer arrangement and/or
liability arising from third party suits brought about by the use of the
licensed product or the licensed technology; and
87.15. Other clauses with equivalent effects. (Sec. 33-C[2], R. A. 165a)
Sec. 88. Mandatory Provisions. - The following provisions shall be
included in voluntary license contracts:
88.1. That the laws of the Philippines shall govern the interpretation of
the same and in the event of litigation, the venue shall be the proper
court in the place where the licensee has its principal office;
88.2. Continued access to improvements in techniques and processes
related to the technology shall be made available during the period of the
technology transfer arrangement;
88.3. In the event the technology transfer arrangement shall provide for
arbitration, the Procedure of Arbitration of the Arbitration Law of the
Philippines or the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) or the Rules of Conciliation and
Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) shall apply
and the venue of arbitration shall be the Philippines or any neutral
country; and
88.4. The Philippine taxes on all payments relating to the technology
transfer arrangement shall be borne by the licensor.
150.1. Any license contract concerning the registration of a mark, or an
application therefor, shall provide for effective control by the licensor of
the quality of the goods or services of the licensee in connection with
which the mark is used. If the license contract does not provide for such
quality control, or if such quality control is not effectively carried out, the
license contract shall not be valid. (If the licensing involves trademarks,
150.1 is treated as an additional mandatory provision by the DITTB)
In order to ascertain whether or not the agreement violates Sections 87
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
68
and 88, please contact your lawyer. If the agreement violates Sections 87 and 88,
the lawyer will assist you in drafting the agreement. For assignments please see
Section III, G.
If my licensing agreement does not conform with sections 87 and 88 is
it valid?
Yes, the agreement is still considered valid but it is unenforceable in the
Philippines. An unenforceable contract in the Philippines renders a valid contract
useless since the party may not enforce the contract in the Philippines. However,
an unenforceable contract can be enforced if the party claiming can prove that
they have already conducted partial performance.
If I do not record my trademark licensing agreement is it considered valid?
Yes, however, the contract cannot be used against third parties.
Can I claim exemption for sections 87 and 88?
Yes, however, you must prove that the licensing or franchise agreement
must be about any of the following: substantial benefits will accrue to the
economy, such as high technology content, increase in foreign exchange earnings,
employment generation, regional dispersal of industries and/or substitution with or
use of local raw materials, or in the case of Board of Investments, registered
companies with pioneer status. Please note employment of a few hundred is not
considered as employment generation.
Chapter Ⅴ. Countermeasure to Trademark Infringement
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
71
Section 1. What is Trademark Infringement?
Trademark Infringement is committed by the use of a registered mark or
a colorable imitation of a registered mark and such use would result in the
likelihood of confusion.
The elements of Trademark Infringement under RA 8293 are:
(1) The trademark being infringed is registered in the Intellectual Property
Office;
(2) The trademark is reproduced, counterfeited, copied, or colorably
imitated by the infringer;
(3) The infringing mark is used in connection with the sale, offering for
sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services; or the
infringing mark is applied to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers,
receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in
connection with such goods, business or services;
(4) The use or application of the infringing mark is likely to cause
confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the
goods or services themselves or as to the source or origin of such
goods or services or the identity of such business; and
(5) The use or application of the infringing mark is without the consent
of the trademark owner or the assignee thereof.
Counterfeiting is a form of trademark infringement where the goods or
services are intentionally made to look identical or almost identical to a registered
trademark.
Section 2. How to respond to trademark infringement
1. Sending of demand/cease and desist letter to infringing party.
Ⅴ Countermeasure to Trademark Infringement
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
72
2. Filing appropriate administrative/civil/criminal case upon their refusal
of failure to cease infringement.
3. Making a publication that the infringing products/services are not the
products/services of the trademark owner.
If you think your mark has been infringed in the Philippines, it is best to
consult your lawyer on the matter.
Section 3. Countermeasures of Trademark infringement case
1. Filing an administrative case with the IPOPHL for trademark
infringement (IPV Case)
2. Request for an injunction in either the IPOPHL or regular courts.
3. Request for impoundment and subsequent destruction of infringing
goods.
4. There are also remedies in the ordinary courts (filing civil and/or
criminal case for trademark infringement)
Section 4. IPOPHL’s mediation
No mediation in IPV cases. But at most, parties may possibly have an
amicable settlement during Pre-Trial.
Section 5. Criminal sanction
An individual found guilty in a criminal case for trademark infringement
(unfair competition, and/or false designation) may be imprisoned up to two (2) to
five (5) years, and may be ordered to pay a fine ranging from P50,000 to
P200,000.
Chapter Ⅵ. Trademark Infringement cases
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
75
Case 1. CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. CA and NSR RUBBER CORP
G.R. NO. 120900, July 20, 2000
CANON (Class 2) v. CANON (Class 25)
Facts : NSR Rubber Corp., filed a trademark application for the mark CANON
for sandals (Class 25) The application was opposed by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
(CKK), a Japanese corporation.
CKK’s deals and sells goods belonging to Class 2 (paints, chemical products,
toner and dyestuff) and has foreign trademark registrations relating to said
class.
CKK’s Opposition was dismissed by both the IPOPHL and the Court of
Appeals. Hence, CKK appealed to the Philippine Supreme Court.
Issues :
(1) Whether or not the trademark of CKK was violated.
(2) Whether or not NSR Rubber Corp’s trademark application infringes the
tradename of CKK “CANON”.
Held : Supreme Court stated that the mark of CKK was not violated and
further held that the tradename of CKK was not violated by the registration of
the mark of NSR Rubber corp.
The Court stated that there are the goods of both NSR Rubber and CKK are
too dissimilar to merit confusion. No person will confuse paints, chemical
products, toner, and dyestuff with sandals.
In addition, the certificate of registration confers upon the trademark owner the
exclusive right to use its own symbol only to those goods specified in the
certificate, subject to the conditions and limitations stated therein.
The Supreme Court also stated that foreign trade names are only automatically
protected in the Philippines if said trade name is internationally well-known,
the subject of the right must be a trademark, must be used for the same or
similar goods, and the person claiming must be the owner of the mark.
Ⅵ Trademark Infringement cases
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
76
Case 2. Wilton Dy v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics
G.R. No. 186088, March 22, 2017
PHILIPS v. PHILITES
Facts : PHILITES filed a trademark application covering its fluorescent bulb,
incandescent light, starter and ballast. After publication, Koninklijke Philips
Electronics, N.V. ("PHILIPS") Opposed the mark based on confusing similarity to
its internationally well-known trademark which are used for the same goods as
PHILITES application.
The IPOPHL, in both the Bureau of Legal Affairs level and the Director General
level, dismissed the Opposition filed by PHILIPS. The held that the mark of
“PHILITES” was not confusing similar to the mark “PHILIPS”.
PHILIPS appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
reversed the decision of the IPOPHL.
Issue : Whether or not the mark “PHILITES” is confusingly similar to the mark
“PHILIPS”
Held : The Supreme Court held that the mark “PHILITES” is confusingly similar
to the mark “PHILIPS”. Applying both Dominancy and Holistic test (Dominancy
and Holistic test are similarity test), the Supreme Court stated that the mark is
confusingly similar to wit:
Applying the dominancy test to this case requires us to look only at the mark
submitted by petitioner in its application, while we give importance to the
aural and visual impressions the mark is likely to create in the minds of the
buyers. We agree with the findings of the CA that the mark "PHILITES" bears
an uncanny resemblance or confusing similarity with respondent's mark
"PHILIPS," to wit:
Applying the dominancy test in the instant case, it shows the uncanny
resemblance or confusing similarity between the trademark applied for by
respondent with that of petitioner's registered trademark. An examination of
the trademarks shows that their dominant or prevalent feature is the
five-letter "PHILI", "PHILIPS" for petitioner, and "PHILITES" for respondent.
Chapter Ⅵ. Trademark Infringement cases
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
77
The marks are confusingly similar with each other such that an ordinary
purchaser can conclude an association or relation between the marks. The
consuming public does not have the luxury of time to ruminate the
phonetic sounds of the trademarks, to find out which one has a short or
long vowel sound. At bottom, the letters "PHILI" visually catch the attention
of the consuming public and the use of respondent's trademark will likely
deceive or cause confusion. Most importantly, both trademarks are used in
the sale of the same goods, which are light bulbs.
The confusing similarity becomes even more prominent when we examine
the entirety of the marks used by petitioner and respondent, including the
way the products are packaged. In using the holistic test, we find that
there is a confusing similarity between the registered marks PHILIPS and
PHILITES, and note that the mark petitioner seeks to register-is vastly
different from that which it actually uses in the packaging of its products.
We quote with approval the findings of the CA as follows:
Applying the holistic test, entails a consideration of the entirety of the
marks as applied to the products, including the labels and packaging, in
determining confusing similarity. A comparison between petitioner's
registered trademark "PHILIPS" as used in the wrapper or packaging of its
light bulbs and that of respondent's applied for trademark "PHILITES" as
depicted in the container or actual wrapper/packaging of the latter's light
bulbs will readily show that there is a strong similitude and likeness
between the two trademarks that will likely cause deception or confusion to
the purchasing public. The fact that the parties' wrapper or packaging
reflects negligible differences considering the use of a slightly different font
and hue of the yellow is of no moment because taken in their entirety,
respondent's trademark "PHILITES" will likely cause confusion or deception
to the ordinary purchaser with a modicum of intelligence.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
78
Case 3. La Chemise Lacoste v. Fernandez
G.R. No. L-63796-97, May 2, 1984
La Chemise Lacoste v. Fernandez
Facts : La Chemise Lacoste is a foreign corporation, organized and existing
under the laws of France and not doing business in the Philippines. It is the
actual owner of the trademarks ‘Lacoste,’ ‘Chemise Lacoste,’ and ‘Crocodile
Device’ used on clothing and other goods that are sold in many parts of the
world and which have been marketed in the Philippines since 1964.
In 1975, Hemandas & Co., a duly licensed domestic firm applied for and was
issued Reg. No. SR-2225 (SR stands for Supplemental Register) for the
trademark "CHEMISE LACOSTE & CROCODILE DEVICE" by the Philippine
Patent Office for use on T-shirts, sportswear and other garment products of
the company. Two years later, it applied for the registration of the same
trademark under the Principal Register
The Patent Office eventually issued an order dated March 3, 1977 which
states that:
xxx xxx xxx
... Considering that the mark was already registered in the Supplemental
Register in favor of herein applicant, the Office has no other recourse but
to allow the application, however, Reg. No. SR-2225 is now being
contested in a Petition for Cancellation docketed as IPC No. 1046, still
registrant is presumed to be the owner of the mark until after the
registration is declared cancelled.
Thereafter, Hemandas & Co. assigned to Gobindram Hemandas all rights, title,
and interest in the trademark "CHEMISE LACOSTE & DEVICE".
On November 21, 1980, the La Chemise Lacoste filed its application for
registration of the trademark "Crocodile Device" (Application Serial No. 43242)
and "Lacoste" (Application Serial No. 43241).The former was approved for
publication while the latter was opposed by Games and Garments in Inter
Partes Case No. 1658. In 1982, the La Chemise Lacoste filed a Petition for
Chapter Ⅵ. Trademark Infringement cases
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
79
the Cancellation of Reg. No. SR-2225 docketed as Inter Partes Case No.
1689. Both cases have now been considered by this Court in Hemandas v.
Hon. Roberto Ongpin (G.R. No. 65659).
On March 21, 1983, the La Chemise Lacoste filed with the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) a letter-complaint alleging therein the acts of unfair
competition being committed by Hemandas and requesting their assistance in
his apprehension and prosecution. The NBI conducted an investigation.
Hemandas opposed and alleged that the trademark used by him was different
from La Chemise Lacoste’s trademark and that pending the resolution of IPC
No. 1658 before the Patent Office, any criminal or civil action on the same
subject matter and between the same parties would be premature. The main
basis is its claim of alleged prior registration.
Issue : Whether or not La Chemise Lacoste’s trademark is a well-known mark
which is protected in the Paris Convention
Held : Yes, La Chemise Lacoste’s trademark is a well-known mark.
There is more than enough evidence to sustain a finding that the La Chemise
Lacoste is the owner of the trademarks "LACOSTE", "CHEMISE LACOSTE", the
crocodile or alligator device, and the composite mark of LACOSTE and the
representation of the crocodile or alligator.
The records show that the goodwill and reputation of the La Chemise
Lacoste’s products bearing the trademark LACOSTE date back even before
1964 when LACOSTE clothing apparels were first marketed in the Philippines.
To allow Hemandas to continue using the trademark Lacoste for the simple
reason that he was the first registrant in the Supplemental Register of a
trademark used in international commerce and not belonging to him is to
render nugatory the very essence of the law on trademarks and tradenames.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
80
Case 4. Asia Brewery, Inc. v. CA
G.R. No. 103543, July 5, 1993
Asia Brewery, Inc. v. CA
Facts : On September 15, 1988, San Miguel Corporation (SMC) filed a
complaint against Asia Brewery Inc. (ABI) for infringement of trademark and
unfair competition on account of the latter's BEER PALE PILSEN product which
has been competing with SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN for a share of the
local beer market.
Issue : Did ABI commit infringement of SMC’s trademark?
Held : The words PALE PILSEN, as part of ABI’s trademark, does not
constitute infringement of SMC’s trademark.
The fact that the words pale pilsen are part of ABI's trademark does not
constitute an infringement of SMC's trademark: SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN, for
"pale pilsen" are generic words descriptive of the color ("pale"), of a type of
beer ("pilsen"), which is a light bohemian beer with a strong hops flavor that
originated in the City of Pilsen in Czechoslovakia and became famous in the
Middle Ages. (Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English
Language, Unabridged. Edited by Philip Babcock Gove. Springfield, Mass.: G &
C Merriam Co., [c] 1976, page 1716.) "Pilsen" is a "primarily geographically
descriptive word," (Sec. 4, subpar. [e] Republic Act No. 166, as inserted by
Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 638) hence, non-registerable and not appropriable by any
beer manufacturer.
The words "pale pilsen" may not be appropriated by SMC for its exclusive use
even if they are part of its registered trademark: SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN,
any more than such descriptive words as "evaporated milk," "tomato ketchup,"
"cheddar cheese," "corn flakes" and "cooking oil" may be appropriated by any
single manufacturer of these food products, for no other reason than that he
was the first to use them in his registered trademark
ABI has neither infringed SMC's trademark nor committed unfair competition
with the latter's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN product. While its BEER PALE
PILSEN admittedly competes with the latter in the open market, that
competition is neither unfair nor fraudulent.
Chapter Ⅵ. Trademark Infringement cases
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
81
Case 5. MCDONALD’S CORP. v. MACJOY
G.R. NO. 166115, February 2, 2007
MCDONALD’S CORP. v. MACJOY
Facts : On 14 March 1991, MacJoy Fastfood Corporation, a domestic
corporation engaged in the sale of fast food products in Cebu City, filed with
the then Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTT), now
the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), an application, thereat identified as
Application Serial No. 75274, for the registration of the trademark “MACJOY &
DEVICE” for fried chicken, chicken barbecue, burgers, fries, spaghetti, palabok,
tacos, sandwiches, halo-halo and steaks under classes 29 and 30 of the
International Classification of Goods. McDonald’s Corporation, a corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA, filed a
verified Notice of Opposition against the MacJoy Fastfood Corporation’s
application claiming that the trademark “MACJOY & DEVICE” so resembles its
corporate logo, otherwise known as the Golden Arches or “M” design, and its
marks “McDonalds,” McChicken,” “MacFries,” “BigMac,” “McDo,” “McSpaghetti,”
“McSnack,” and “Mc,” (hereinafter collectively known as the MCDONALD’S
marks) such that when used on identical or related goods, the trademark
applied for would confuse or deceive purchasers into believing that the goods
originate from the same source or origin.
The McDonald Corporation likewise alleged that the MacJoy Fastfood
Corporation’s use and adoption in bad faith of the “MACJOY & DEVICE” mark
would falsely tend to suggest a connection or affiliation with McDonald’s
Corporation’s restaurant services and food products, thus, constituting a fraud
upon the general public and further cause the dilution of the distinctiveness of
McDonald’s Corporation’s registered and internationally recognized
MCDONALD’S marks to its prejudice and irreparable damage.
MacJoy Fastfood Corporation denied the aforementioned allegations of
McDonald’s Corporation and averred that it has used the mark “MACJOY” for
the past many years in good faith and has spent considerable sums of money
for said mark’s extensive promotion in tri-media, especially in Cebu City where
it has been doing business long before McDonald’s Corporation opened its
outlet thereat sometime in 1992; and that its use of said mark would not
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
82
confuse affiliation with McDonald’s Corporation’s restaurant services and food
products because of the differences in the design and detail of the two (2)
marks.
Issue : Whether or not there is a confusing similarity between the
MCDONALD’S marks of the MCDONALD’S CORP and the MCJOY’S “MACJOY
& DEVICE” trademark.
Held : Applying the dominancy test to the instant case, the Court found that
“MCDONALD’S” and “MACJOY” marks are confusingly similar with each other
such that an ordinary purchaser can conclude an association or relation
between the marks.
Both marks use the corporate “M” design logo and the prefixes “Mc” and/or
“Mac” as dominant features. The first letter “M” in both marks puts emphasis
on the prefixes “Mc” and/or “Mac” by the similar way in which they are
depicted i.e. in an arch-like, capitalized and stylized manner. It is the prefix
“Mc,” an abbreviation of “Mac,” which visually and aurally catches the attention
of the consuming public. Most importantly, both trademarks are used in the
sale of fastfood products. Likewise, the MCDONALD’S marks in the Philippines
covers goods which are similar if not identical to those covered by MacJoy
Fastfood Corporation’s application.
Chapter Ⅵ. Trademark Infringement cases
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
83
Case 6. Prosource v. Horphag Research
G.R. No. 180073, November 25, 2009
Prosource v. Horphag Research
Facts : Horphag Research Management SA is a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of Switzerland and the owner of trademark
PYCNOGENOL, a food supplement sold and distributed by Zuellig Pharma
Corporation. Horphag Research Management SA later discovered that Prosource
International, Inc. was also distributing a similar food supplement using the
mark PCO-GENOLS since 1996. This prompted Horphag Research Management
SA to demand that Prosource International, Inc. cease and desist from using
the aforesaid mark.
Prosource, without notifying Horphag Research Management SA, discontinued
the use of, and withdrew from the market, the products under the name
PCO-GENOLS as of June 19, 2000. It, likewise, changed its mark from
PCO-GENOLS to PCO-PLUS.
On August 22, 2000, Horphag Research Management SA filed a Complaint for
Infringement of Trademark with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction against
Horphag Research Management SA, praying that the latter cease and desist
from using the brand PCO-GENOLS for being confusingly similar with Horphag
Research Management SA’s trademark PYCNOGENOL.
Issue : Whether or not there is confusing similarity between PYCNOGENOL
and PCO-GENOLS.
Held : Under the dominancy test, both the words PYCNOGENOL and
PCO-GENOLS have the same suffix "GENOL" which on evidence, appears to
be merely descriptive and furnish no indication of the origin of the article and
hence, open for trademark registration by the plaintiff thru combination with
another word or phrase such as PYCNOGENOL,
Although the letters "Y" between P and C, "N" between O and C and "S" after
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
84
L are missing in Prosource’s mark PCO-GENOLS, nevertheless, when the two
words are pronounced, the sound effects are confusingly similar not to
mention that they are both described by their manufacturers as a food
supplement and thus, identified as such by their public consumers.
Although there were dissimilarities in the trademark due to the type of letters
used as well as the size, color and design employed on their individual
packages/bottles, still the close relationship of the competing products' name
in sounds as they were pronounced, clearly indicates that purchasers could be
misled into believing that they are the same and/or originates from a common
source and manufacturer
The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the
competing trademarks that might cause confusion and deception, thus
constituting infringement. If the competing trademark contains the main,
essential and dominant features of another, and confusion or deception is
likely to result, infringement takes place.
Duplication or imitation is not necessary; nor is it necessary that the infringing
label should suggest an effort to imitate. The question is whether the use of
the marks involved is likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the
public or to deceive purchasers. Courts will consider more the aural and visual
impressions created by the marks in the public mind, giving little weight to
factors like prices, quality, sales outlets, and market segments.
Chapter Ⅵ. Trademark Infringement cases
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
85
Case 7. SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE, S.A. v CA and CFC CORP.
G.R. NO. 112012, April 4, 2001
SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE, S.A. v CA and CFC CORP.
Facts : On January 18, 1984, CFC Corporation filed with the BPTTT an
application for the registration of the trademark “FLAVOR MASTER” for instant
coffee. Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A., a Swiss company registered under
Swiss laws and domiciled in Switzerland, filed an Opposition, claiming that the
mark of CFC Corporation’s product is confusingly similar to its trademarks
“MASTER ROAST” and “MASTER BLEND” for coffee and coffee extracts.
In answer to the two oppositions, CFC argued that its trademark, FLAVOR
MASTER, is not confusingly similar with the former’s trademarks, MASTER
ROAST and MASTER BLEND, alleging that, “except for the word MASTER, the
other words that are used respectively with said word in the three trademarks
are very different from each other – in meaning, spelling, pronunciation, and
sound”. CFC further argued that its trademark, FLAVOR MASTER, “is clearly
very different from any of Nestle’s alleged trademarks MASTER ROAST and
MASTER BLEND, especially when the marks are viewed in their entirety, by
considering their pictorial representations, color schemes and the letters of
their respective labels.”
Issue : Whether or not the mark FLAVOR MASTER is a confusingly similar to
the trademarks MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND.
Held : Yes, FLAVOR MASTER is confusingly similar to MASTER ROAST and
MASTER BLEND.
It must be emphasized that the products bearing the trademarks in question
are “inexpensive and common” household items bought off the shelf by
“undiscerningly rash” purchasers. As such, if the ordinary purchaser is
“undiscerningly rash”, then he would not have the time nor the inclination to
make a keen and perceptive examination of the physical discrepancies in the
trademarks of the products in order to exercise his choice.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
86
Case 8. FRUIT OF THE LOOM, INC. v. CA and GENERAL GARMENTS CORP.
G.R. No. L-32747, November 29, 1984
FRUIT OF THE LOOM, INC. v. CA and GENERAL GARMENTS CORP.
Facts : FRUIT OF THE LOOM, INC., a corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Rhode Island, United States of America, is the
registrant of a trademark, FRUIT OF THE LOOM, in the Philippines Patent Office
and was issued two Certificates of Registration Nos. 6227 and 6680, on
November 29, 1957 and July 26, 1958, respectively. The classes of merchandise
covered are, among others, men's, women's and children's underwear, which
includes women's panties, etc.
GENERAL GARMENTS CORP., a domestic corporation, is the registrant of a
trademark FRUIT FOR EVE in the Philippine Patent Office and was issued a
Certificate of Registration No. 10160, on January 10, 1963 covering garments
similar to the products of FRUIT OF THE LOOM, INC. like women's panties and
pajamas.
On March 31, 1965 FRUIT OF THE LOOM, INC. filed before the lower court, a
complaint for infringement of trademark and unfair competition against GENERAL
GARMENTS CORP.
FRUIT OF THE LOOM, INC. principally alleged in the complaint that the trademark
of GENERAL GARMENTS CORP. ”FRUIT FOR EVE”, is confusingly similar to its
trademark FRUIT OF THE LOOM used also on women's panties and other textile
products. Furthermore, it was also alleged therein that the color get-up and
general appearance of GENERAL GARMENTS CORP’s hang tag consisting of a big
red apple is a colorable imitation to the hang tag of FRUIT OF THE LOOM, INC.
GENERAL GARMENTS CORP. filed an answer invoking the defense that its
registered trademark is not confusingly similar to that of FRUIT OF THE LOOM,
INC. Likewise, GENERAL GARMENTS CORP. stated that the trademark FRUIT
FOR EVE is being used on ladies' panties and pajamas only whereas FRUIT OF
THE LOOM, INC.’s trademark is used even on men's underwear and pajamas.
Chapter Ⅵ. Trademark Infringement cases
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
87
Issue : Whether or not the trademark of GENERAL GARMENTS CORP.,FRUIT FOR
EVE is confusingly similar to the trademark of FRUIT OF THE LOOM, INC., FRUIT
OF THE LOOM.
Held : There is no confusing similarity which would deceive buyers. In the
trademarks FRUIT OF THE LOOM and FRUIT FOR EVE, the lone similar word is
FRUIT and by mere pronouncing the two marks, it could hardly be said that it will
provoke a confusion, as to mistake one for the other. Standing by itself, FRUIT
OF THE LOOM is wholly different from FRUIT FOR EVE.
The similarities of the competing trademarks in this case are completely lost in
the substantial differences in the design and general appearance of their
respective hang tags. The trademarks FRUIT OF THE LOOM and FRUIT FOR EVE
do not resemble each other as to confuse or deceive an ordinary purchaser. The
ordinary purchaser must be thought of as having, and credited with, at least a
modicum of intelligence to be able to see the obvious differences between the
two trademarks in question.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
88
Case 9. Diaz v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 180677, February 18, 2013
Diaz v. People of the Philippines
Facts : Levi Strauss Philippines, Inc. (Levi’s Philippines) is a licensee of Levi’s.
After receiving information that Diaz was selling counterfeit LEVI’S 501 jeans in
his tailoring shops in Almanza and Talon, Las Piñas City, Levi’s Philippines hired
a private investigation group to verify the information. Surveillance and the
purchase of jeans from the tailoring shops of Diaz established that the jeans
bought from the tailoring shops of Diaz were counterfeit or imitations of LEVI’S
501. Levi’s Philippines then sought the assistance of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) for purposes of applying for a search warrant against Diaz to
be served at his tailoring shops. The search warrants were issued in due course.
Armed with the search warrants, NBI agents searched the tailoring shops of Diaz
and seized several fake LEVI’S 501 jeans from them. Levi’s Philippines claimed
that it did not authorize the making and selling of the seized jeans; that each of
the jeans were mere imitations of genuine LEVI’S 501 jeans by each of them
bearing the registered trademarks, like the arcuate design, the tab, and the leather
patch; and that the seized jeans could be mistaken for original LEVI’S 501 jeans
due to the placement of the arcuate, tab, and two-horse leather patch.
On his part, Diaz admitted being the owner of the shops searched, but he denied
any criminal liability. Diaz stated that he did not manufacture Levi’s jeans, and that
he used the label “LS Jeans Tailoring” in the jeans that he made and sold; that
the label “LS Jeans Tailoring” was registered with the Intellectual Property Office;
that his shops received clothes for sewing or repair; that his shops offered
made-to-order jeans, whose styles or designs were done in accordance with
instructions of the customers; that since the time his shops began operating in
1992, he had received no notice or warning regarding his operations; that the
jeans he produced were easily recognizable because the label “LS Jeans
Tailoring,” and the names of the customers were placed inside the pockets, and
each of the jeans had an “LSJT” red tab; that “LS” stood for “Latest Style;” and
that the leather patch on his jeans had two buffaloes, not two horses.
Issue : Whether or not Diaz is liable for trademark infringement.
Chapter Ⅵ. Trademark Infringement cases
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
89
Held : No. Diaz did not commit trademark infringement.The likelihood of confusion
is the gravamen of the offense of trademark infringement. There are two tests to
determine likelihood of confusion, namely: the dominancy test, and the holistic
test. The contrasting concept of these tests was explained in Societes Des
Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Dy, Jr. (G.R. No. 172276, August 9, 2010), thus:
x x x. The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the main, prevalent or
essential features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion.
Infringement takes place when the competing trademark contains the essential
features of another. Imitation or an effort to imitate is unnecessary. The question
is whether the use of the marks is likely to cause confusion or deceive
purchasers.
The holistic test considers the entirety of the marks, including labels and
packaging, in determining confusing similarity. The focus is not only on the
predominant words but also on the other features appearing on the labels.
The holistic test is applicable here considering that the herein criminal cases also
involved trademark infringement in relation to jeans products. Accordingly, the
jeans trademarks of Levi’s Philippines and Diaz must be considered as a whole
in determining the likelihood of confusion between them. The maong pants or
jeans made and sold by Levi’s Philippines, which included LEVI’S 501, were very
popular in the Philippines. The consuming public knew that the original LEVI’S 501
jeans were under a foreign brand and quite expensive. Such jeans could be
purchased only in malls or boutiques as ready-to-wear items, and were not
available in tailoring shops like those of Diaz’s as well as not acquired on a
“made-to-order” basis. Under the circumstances, the consuming public could
easily discern if the jeans were original or fake LEVI’S 501, or were manufactured
by other brands of jeans.
Diaz used the trademark “LS JEANS TAILORING” for the jeans he produced and
sold in his tailoring shops. His trademark was visually and aurally different from
the trademark “LEVI STRAUSS & CO” appearing on the patch of original jeans
under the trademark LEVI’S 501. The word “LS” could not be confused as a
derivative from “LEVI STRAUSS” by virtue of the “LS” being connected to the
word “TAILORING”, thereby openly suggesting that the jeans bearing the
trademark “LS JEANS TAILORING” came or were bought from the tailoring shops
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
90
of Diaz, not from the malls or boutiques selling original LEVI’S 501 jeans to the
consuming public.
Moreover, based on the certificate issued by the Intellectual Property Office, “LS
JEANS TAILORING” was a registered trademark of Diaz. He had registered his
trademark prior to the filing of the present cases. The Intellectual Property Office
would certainly not have allowed the registration had Diaz’s trademark been
confusingly similar with the registered trademark for LEVI’S 501 jeans. Given the
foregoing, it should be plain that there was no likelihood of confusion between the
trademarks involved.
Chapter Ⅵ. Trademark Infringement cases
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
91
Case 10. TAIWAN KOLIN CORPORATION, LTD. v. KOLIN ELECTRONICS CO., INC.
G.R. No. 209843, March 25, 2015
TAIWAN KOLIN CORPORATION, LTD. v. KOLIN ELECTRONICS CO., INC.
Facts : On February 29, 1996, Taiwan Kolin filed with the Intellectual Property
Office (IPO), then Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfer, a
trademark application, docketed as Application No. 4-1996-106310, for the use of
“KOLIN” on a combination of goods, including colored televisions, refrigerators,
window-type and split-type air conditioners, electric fans and water dispensers.
Said goods allegedly fall under Classes 9, 11, and 21 of the Nice Classification
(NCL).
Application No. 4-1996-106310 would eventually be considered abandoned for
Taiwan Kolin’s failure to respond to IPO’s Paper requiring it to elect one class of
good for its coverage. However, the same application was subsequently revived
through Application Serial No. 4-2002-011002, with Taiwan Kolin electing Class 9
as the subject of its application, particularly: television sets, cassette recorder,
VCD Amplifiers, camcorders and other audio/video electronic equipment, flat iron,
vacuum cleaners, cordless handsets, videophones, facsimile machines, teleprinters,
cellular phones and automatic goods vending machine. The application would in
time be duly published.
On July 13, 2006, Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. (Kolin Electronics) opposed Taiwan
Kolin’s revived application, docketed as Inter Partes Case No. 14-2006-00096. As
argued, the mark Taiwan Kolin seeks to register is identical, if not confusingly
similar, with its “KOLIN” mark registered on November 23, 2003, covering the
following products under Class 9 of the NCL: automatic voltage regulator,
converter, recharger, stereo booster, AC-DC regulated power supply, step-down
transformer, and PA amplified AC-DC.
Issue : Whether or not Taiwan Kolin is entitled to its trademark registration of
"KOLIN" over its specific goods of television sets and DVD players.
Held : Yes, identical marks may be registered for products from the same
classification if the goods are not similar nor related.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
92
Whether or not the products covered by the trademark sought to be registered
by Taiwan Kolin, on the one hand, and those covered by the prior issued
certificate of registration in favor of Kolin Electronics, on the other, fall under the
same categories in the NCL is not the sole and decisive factor in determining a
possible violation of Kolin Electronics’ intellectual property right should Taiwan
Kolin ‘s application be granted.
Emphasis should be on the similarity of the products involved and not on the
arbitrary classification or general description of their properties or characteristics.
The mere fact that one person has adopted and used a trademark on his goods
would not, without more, prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark by
others on unrelated articles of a different kind.
The products covered by Taiwan Kolin’s application and Kolin Electronics’
registration are unrelated. A certificate of trademark registration confers upon the
trademark owner the exclusive right to sue those who have adopted a similar
mark not only in connection with the goods or services specified in the certificate,
but also with those that are related.
Chapter Ⅵ. Trademark Infringement cases
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
93
Case 11. UFC PHILIPPINES, INC. (NOW MERGED WITH NUTRI-ASIA, INC.,
WITH NUTRI-ASIA, INC. AS THE SURVIVING ENTITY) v. FIESTA BARRIO
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 198889, January 20, 2016
UFC PHILIPPINES, INC. (NOW MERGED WITH NUTRI-ASIA, INC., WITH
NUTRI-ASIA, INC. AS THE SURVIVING ENTITY) v. FIESTA BARRIO
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
Facts : On April 4, 2002, FIESTA BARRIO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION filed
Application No. 4-2002-002757 for the mark "PAPA BOY & DEVICE" for goods
under Class 30, specifically for "lechon sauce" (liver sauce). The Intellectual
Property Office (IPO) published said application for opposition in the IP Phil.
e-Gazette released on September 8, 2006.
The UFC PHILIPPINES INC. contended that "PAPA BOY & DEVICE" is confusingly
similar with its "PAPA" marks inasmuch as the former incorporates the term
"PAPA”. UFC PHILIPPINES INC. averred that FIESTA BARRIO MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION’s use of "PAPA BOY & DEVICE" mark for its lechon sauce product,
if allowed, would likely lead the consuming public to believe that said lechon
sauce product originates from or is authorized by UFC PHILIPPINES INC. and that
the "PAPA BOY & DEVICE" mark is a variation or derivative of UFC PHILIPPINES
INC.’s "PAPA" marks.
UFC PHILIPPINES INC. argued that this was especially true considering that UFC
PHILIPPINES INC.’s ketchup product and FIESTA BARRIO MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION’s lechon sauce product are related articles that fall under the
same Class 30.
UFC PHILIPPINES INC. alleged that the registration of FIESTA BARRIO
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION’s challenged mark was also likely to damage
UFC PHILIPPINES INC. considering that its former sister company, Southeast Asia
Food, Inc., and the latter's predecessors-in-interest, had been major
manufacturers and distributors of lechon and other table sauces since 1965, such
as products employing the registered "Mang Tomas" mark.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
94
In its Verified Answer, FIESTA BARRIO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION’s
argued that there is no likelihood of confusion between UFC PHILIPPINES INC ‘s
family of "PAPA" trademarks and FIESTA BARRIO MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION’s "PAPA BOY & DEVICE" trademark.
Issue : Whether or not FIESTA BARRIO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION’s mark
"PAPA BOY & DEVICE" for goods under Class 30, specifically for "lechon sauce”
can be registered.
Held : FIESTA BARRIO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION’s mark "PAPA BOY &
DEVICE" cannot be registered for goods under Class 30.
A scrutiny of ' UFC PHILIPPINES INC. and FIESTA BARRIO MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION’s respective marks would show that the IPO-BLA and the IPO
Director General correctly found the word "PAPA" as the dominant feature of UFC
PHILIPPINES INC ‘s mark "PAPA KETSARAP." Contrary to FIESTA BARRIO
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION’s contention, "KETSARAP" cannot be the
dominant feature of the mark as it is merely descriptive of the product.
Furthermore, it is the "PAPA" mark that has been in commercial use for decades
and has established awareness and goodwill among consumers.
The Supreme Court agreed with the IPO-BLA that the word "PAPA" is the
dominant feature of FIESTA BARRIO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION’s "PAPA
BOY & DEVICE" mark subject of the application, such that "the word 'PAPA' is
written on top of and before the other words such that it is the first word/figure
that catches the eyes.” The Court also noted that the ordinary purchasers will
recall the dominant feature “PAPA” as coming form UFC PHILIPPINES INC.
Chapter Ⅵ. Trademark Infringement cases
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
95
Case 12. Daiso Industries Co., LTD. v. Tan
PC No. 14-2012-00365
Opposition to: Appln. Serial No. 4-2012-002507
Date Filed: 29 February 2012
TM: "MY SHOP- ALL
Case Decided by the Intellectual Property Office, Philippines
Daiso Industries Co., LTD. v. Tan
Facts : DAISO INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. ("Opposer") filed an opposition against the
makr "MY SHOP-ALL DAISO" which filed by Ma. Olivia D. Tan
(Respondent-Applicant). Respondent-Applicant’s mark is used for "retail stores or
online stores for household goods, home products, bathwares, electronics,
hardware, kitchenware, general merchandise, management and franchising of
retail services" under Class 35 of the International Classification of Goods and
Services.
Issue : Whether or not the Opposition should be granted.
Held : The mark "MY SHOP-ALL DAISO" should not be granted registration as it
is confusing similar to the mark “DAISO”.
A comparison of the competing marks reproduced below shows that confusion is
likely to occur.
Even with the accompanying words MY, SHOP and ALL, and hyphen (-) in
between SHOP and ALL before the word DAISO, the IPOPH stated that the top
of the mind recall would be the word DAISO. In addition, trademark application
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
96
covers services that are similar and/or closely related to the Opposer's,
particularly, retail stores or retail services under Class 35, it is likely that the
consumers will have the impression that these services originate from single
source or origin.
Public interest therefore requires, that two marks, identical to or closely
resembling each other and used on the same and closely related goods or
services, but utilized by different proprietors should not be allowed to co-exist.
Confusion, mistake, deception, and even fraud, should be prevented.
It is emphasized that the function of trademark is to point out distinctly the origin
or ownership of the goods to which it is affixed; to secure to him, who has been
instrumental in bringing into the market superior article of merchandise, the fruit
of his industry and skill; to assure the public that they are procuring the genuine
article; to prevent fraud and imposition; and to protect the manufacturer against
substitution and sale of an inferior and different article as his product.
Chapter Ⅵ. Trademark Infringement cases
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
97
Case 13. SUPERIOR COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. KUNNAN
ENTERPRISES LTD.
G.R. NO. 169974, April 20, 2010
SUPERIOR COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. KUNNAN ENTERPRISES LTD.
Facts : Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc. filed a complaint for trademark
infringement and unfair competition with preliminary injunction against Kunnan
Enterprises Ltd. and Sports Concept & Distributor, Inc. with the Regional Trial
Court.
In support of its complaint, SUPERIOR first claimed to be the owner of the
trademarks, trading styles, company names and business names “KENNEX”,
“KENNEX & DEVICE”, “PRO KENNEX” and “PRO-KENNEX” . Second, it also
asserted its prior use of these trademarks, presenting as evidence of ownership
the Principal and Supplemental Registrations of these trademarks in its name.
Third, SUPERIOR also alleged that it extensively sold and advertised sporting
goods and products covered by its trademark registrations. Finally, SUPERIOR
presented as evidence of its ownership of the disputed trademarks pursuant to a
Distributorship Agreement dated October 1, 1982.
KUNNAN disputed SUPERIOR’s claim of ownership and maintained that
SUPERIOR is mere distributor and fraudulently registered the trademarks in its
name. KUNNAN alleged that it was incorporated in 1972, under the name
KENNEX Sports Corporation for the purpose of manufacturing and selling
sportswear and sports equipment; it commercially marketed its products in
different countries, including the Philippines since 1972. It created and first used
"PRO KENNEX," derived from its original corporate name, as a distinctive
trademark for its products in 1976. KUNNAN also alleged that it registered the
"PRO KENNEX" trademark not only in the Philippines but also in other countries,
and widely promoted the "KENNEX" and "PRO KENNEX" trademarks through
worldwide advertisements in print media and sponsorships of known tennis
players.
Issues : Whether or not KUNNAN committed infringement and/or unfair competition
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
98
Held : KUNNAN did not commit infringement and/or unfair competition as it was
the rightful owner of the mark.
To establish trademark infringement, the following elements must be proven: (1)
the validity of plaintiff’s mark; (2) the plaintiff’s ownership of the mark; and (3) the
use of the mark or its colorable imitation by the alleged infringer results in
“likelihood of confusion.”
The Supreme Court stated that SUPERIOR COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES was not
the proper owner of the mark since SUPERIOR COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES was
a mere distributor of the true owner.
Chapter Ⅵ. Trademark Infringement cases
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
99
Case 14. MCDONALDS CORPORATION v. L.C BIG MAK BURGER.
G.R. No. 143993, August 18, 2004
MCDONALDS CORPORATION v. L.C BIG MAK BURGER.
Facts : L.C. Big Mak Burger tried to register the mark “BIG MAK” and engaged
in the sale and distribution of burgers and other food products bearing the brand
“BIG MAK” in the Philippine market.
McDonalds also filed an Opposition case with the IPOPHL and at the same time
filed a trademark infringement and unfair case with the Regional Trial Court.
McDonalds also filed a request for temporary restraining order and injuction in the
Regional Trial Court to stop L.C. Big Mak Burger from using the “BIG MAK” in the
market.
McDonalds’ argument was that the mark “BIG MAK” is confusingly similar to its
internationally well-known trademark “BIG MAC” which is used for burgers.
The Regional Trial Court granted the injunction and held that L.C. Big Mak Burger
was liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
L.C. Big Mak Burger appealed the decision of the Regional Trial Court to the Court
of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court
and held that there was no confusion.
Issues : Whether or not McDonalds is entitled to injuctive relief
Whether or not the use of the mark “BIG MAK” constitutes trademark
infringement.
Held : The Supreme Court held that the use of the mark constitutes trademark
infringement and unfair competition. In holding L.C. Big Mak Burger, the Court
held that the use of the “BIG MAK” mark was calculated to deceive the public into
believing that the goods and business of McDonalds is related to the goods and
business of L.C. Big Mak Burger, to wit:
Applying the dominancy test, the Court finds that respondents' use of the "Big
Mak" mark results in likelihood of confusion. First, "Big Mak" sounds exactly the
same as "Big Mac." Second, the first word in "Big Mak" is exactly the same as
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
100
the first word in "Big Mac." Third, the first two letters in "Mak" are the same as
the first two letters in "Mac." Fourth, the last letter in "Mak" while a "k" sounds
the same as "c" when the word "Mak" is pronounced. Fifth, in Filipino, the letter
"k" replaces "c" in spelling, thus "Caloocan" is spelled "Kalookan."
In short, aurally the two marks are the same, with the first word of both marks
phonetically the same, and the second word of both marks also phonetically the
same. Visually, the two marks have both two words and six letters, with the first
word of both marks having the same letters and the second word having the
same first two letters. In spelling, considering the Filipino language, even the last
letters of both marks are the same.
Clearly, respondents have adopted in "Big Mak" not only the dominant but also
almost all the features of "Big Mac." Applied to the same food product of
hamburgers, the two marks will likely result in confusion in the public mind.xxx
Absent proof that respondents' adoption of the "Big Mak" mark was due to honest
mistake or was fortuitous, the inescapable conclusion is that respondents adopted
the "Big Mak" mark to "ride on the coattails" of the more established "Big Mac"
mark. This saves respondents much of the expense in advertising to create
market recognition of their mark and hamburgers.
The Supreme Court also reinstated the injunction issued by the RTC and held that
a party who is able to successfully prove trademark infringement or unfair
competition is entitled to injuctive reliefs.
Chapter Ⅶ. Trademark related Government office and organization
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
103
1. Securities and Exchange Commission24)
Tasked with the registration and regulation of companies, including
business names. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the
Commission is the national government regulatory agency charged with
supervision over the corporate sector, the capital market participants, and the
securities and investment instruments market, and the protection of the investing
public.25)
Address : Secretariat Building, PICC Complex, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City,
1307
Public Assistance : crmd_publicassistance@sec.gov.ph
- Change of Corporate Name, Business Purpose, Principal Office Address and Other Ordinary Amendments to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws : dpgabuyo@sec.gov.ph
Contact No. : 8818-0921
- Company Registration and Monitoring Department: 8818-5811 / 8818-5319 (local extension 212)
Website: https://www.sec.gov.ph/ and https://www.sec.gov.ph/contact-us/
2. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)26)
DTI is “the primary coordinative, promotive, facilitative and regulatory arm
of the Executive Branch of government in the area of trade, industry and
investments. It shall promote and develop an industrialization program effectively
controlled by Filipinos and shall act as catalyst for intensified private sector activity
in order to accelerate and sustain economic growth through: (a) comprehensive
industrial growth strategy, (b) a progressive and socially responsible liberation
program, (c) policies designed for the expansion and diversification of trade, and
(d) policies to protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and
24) https://www.sec.gov.ph/
25) https://www.sec.gov.ph/about-us/mandate-mission-values-and-vision-2/
26) https://www.dti.gov.ph/
Ⅶ Trademark related Government office and organization
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
104
trade practices.”27) DTI is tasked with the registration of tradenames and
registration of sole proprietorship and partnerships
Address : Trade & Industry Building, 361 Sen. Gil J. Puyat Ave., 1200 Makati
City, Philippines
Email : ask@dti.gov.ph
Contact No. : (Telephone) 1-DTI (384) / (Mobile) 0917.834.3330
Business Name Registration: https://bnrs.dti.gov.ph/
3. Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL)28)
The IPOPHL is the government agency tasked to administer and
implement the State policy, laws, rules and regulations on Intellectual Property and
to strengthen the protection and enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in the
country.29)
Address : Intellectual Property Center, #28 Upper McKinley Road, McKinley
Hill Town Center, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City 1634 Philippines
Email : General information – ask@ipophil.gov.ph
Bureau of Trademarks – bot@ipophil.gov.ph
Documentation, Information, & Technology Transfer Bureau -
dittb@ipophil.gov.ph
Contact No. : +63 (2) 7238-6300
- Public Information Desk Local : 5405, 5406
Website : https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/services/trademark/
4. Department of Justice30)
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is the “principal law agency which shall
be both its legal counsel and prosecution arm; (mandated to) administer the
27) Section 2, Chapter 1, Title X, Book IV, Executive Order No. 292 (or the Administrative Code of 1987)
28) See https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/contact-main-office/, last visited 17 November 2020
29) See https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/mandate-function/, last visited 28 August 2020.
30) https://doj.gov.ph/index.html
Chapter Ⅶ. Trademark related Government office and organization
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
105
criminal justice system in accordance with the accepted processes thereof
consisting in the investigation of the crimes, prosecute offenders and
administration of the correctional system; implement the laws on the admission
and stay of aliens, citizenship, land titling system, and settle of land problems
involving small landowners and members of indigenous cultural minorities; and
provide free legal services to indigent members of the society.”31) The DOJ heads
the prosecution Intellectual Property related criminal cases.
Address : Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manila 1000, Republic of the Philippines
Email : communications@doj.gov.ph
Contact No. : (+632) 8523 8481 to 98
5. Philippine National Police32) and National Bureau of Investigation33)
Philippine National Police and National Bureau of Investigation are tasked
with the investigation of possible criminal activities relating to trademarks. They
may also be tasked to assist other government agencies in the IP enforcement.
(Philippines National Police)
Address : Directorate for Police Community Relations, PNP NHQ Camp
General Crame, Quezon City, Metro Manila. Philippines 1100
Email : dpcr@pnp.gov.ph / pnpdpcr@yahoo.com
Contact No. : +632 723-0401, 8897-8904, 8895-3246
(National Bureau of Investigation)
Address : NBI Building, Taft Avenue, Ermita Manila, Philippines 1000
Email : director@nbi.gov.ph
Contact No. : 5223 8231 to 38
31) Section 1, Chapter 1, Title III, Book IV, Executive Order No. 292 (or the Administrative Code of 1987)
32) http://www.pnp.gov.ph/index.php/office-of-the-ex-officio/contact-us
33) https://nbi.gov.ph/contact-us/
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
106
6. Bureau of Customs34)
The Bureau of Customs (BOC) is a government agency under the
Department of Finance. The Bureau of Customs supervises the country's principal
ports of entry and is composed of the following offices: Internal Administration Group,
Revenue Collection Monitor Group, Assessment and Operations Coordination
Group, Intelligence Group, Enforcement Group, Management Information System
and Technology Group, Post Clearance Audit Group, and Collection Districts.35)
The Bureau of Customs is tasked with checking incoming goods which
may be infringing goods bearing a Philippine registered trademark. Any person
may submit his or her registered trademark with the Bureau of Customs’ watch
list subject to fees.
Address : Customer Assistance & Response Service (BOC-Cares), G/F
OCOM Building, 16th Street, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila
Email : boc.cares@customs.gov.ph
Contact No. : (Hotline) 632) 705-6000 (Mobile) 0905-299-7977, 0929-503-5138
7. Bureau of Food and Drugs or the Food and Drug Administration36)
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), formerly the Bureau of Food and
Drugs, is an regulatory Office under the Department of Health “mandated to
ensure the safety, efficacy or quality of health products as defined by Republic Act
No. 9711 or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Act of 2009, which include
food, drugs, cosmetics, devices, biologicals, vaccines, in-vitro diagnostic reagents,
radiation-emitting devices or equipment, and household/urban hazardous
substances, including pesticides and toys, or consumer products that may have an
effect on health which require regulations as determined by the FDA.”37) The FDA
no longer has regulatory powers when it comes to confusing similarity of marks,
however, all medicines including their brand names must be registered with the FDA.
Email : fdac@fda.gov.ph
Contact No. : 0956-4518341 / 0961-6804447
34) https://customs.gov.ph/
35) See https://customs.gov.ph/offices/, last visited 28 August 2020.
36) http://www.fda.gov.ph/
37) See https://ww2.fda.gov.ph/index.php/about-food-and-drug-administration, last visited 28 August 2020.
Chapter Ⅷ. Frequent FAQ
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
109
1. What is the risk of using a brand name without registering a trademark?
Registering the brand name ensures that third parties will be prevented
from using an identical or confusingly similar mark in the future in the Philippines.
2. A trademark that includes words in a Korean language other than
English/Tagalog letter or character can be protected?
Yes, Korean characters are protected in the Philippines. Please note that
the IPOPHL will require a translation and transliteration of the Korean language.
3. Reason to file trademark in the Philippines, if I already registered
trademark in Korea.
Trademark is territorial in nature, generally, this means that your Korean
trademark will not be honored in the Philippines.
4. If a trademark is not used for a certain period of time, will the
trademark registration be cancelled?
Yes, failure to use the mark in the Philippines without justifiable reason
will mean the removal of the mark from the trademark registry upon the lapse of
the period to file the Declaration of Actual Use. (see discussion on Declaration of
Actual Use to know when to submit the DAU)
5. When can I use the trademark symbols TM, SM, and ®?
You may only use the “Registered Mark" and ®, if your mark is registered
in the Philippines. However, imported goods are allowed to bear the TM, SM, and
® stamps as long as the goods bearing the stamps are actually and effectively
registered in the country of origin.
Please note that Philippine trademark law does not recognize TM and SM
a valid trademark registration symbols.
Ⅷ Frequent FAQ
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
110
6. For the renewal of a trademark, is there any remedy if the renewal
fee is not paid within a certain period?
The request for renewal must be made within six (6) months before the
expiration of the period for which the registration was issued or renewed, or
within six (6) months after such expiration, subject to the payment of the
prescribed additional fee or surcharge.
Request for renewal, including any payment after the periods above will
NOT BE ACCEPTED.
7. Is there a way to use/protect my trademark if another person has
registered the trademark first?
You may file an Opposition or Cancellation case arguing any of the
following:
The third person filed the trademark in bad faith
What are considered trademarks filed in bad faith?
Distributor filed in behalf of application without consent or knowledge of the
Licensor / Manufacturer
Third party filed an almost identical mark even though he knew of the
existence of your mark.
Third party filed the mark fraudulently
The third person’s mark is identical or confusing to an internationally
well-known trademark not filed in the Philippines
Assuming you are not interested in filing an Opposition or
Cancellation case in the Philippines. Philippine law allows prior users in
good faith to continue on with the use of the mark in the Philippines.
However, The prior users right may only be transferred or assigned
together with his enterprise or business or with that part of his enterprise
or business in which the mark is used.
Chapter Ⅷ. Frequent FAQ
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
111
8. Is there a way to cancel the registered trademark when someone
registered the trademark first?
Yes, you may file a cancellation case in any of the following circumstances:
The third person filed the trademark in bad faith
What are considered trademarks filed in bad faith?
Distributor filed in behalf of application without consent or knowledge of the
Licensor / Manufacturer
Third party filed an almost identical mark even though he knew of the
existence of your mark.
Third party filed the mark fraudulently
The third person’s mark is identical or confusing to an internationally
well-known trademark not filed in the Philippines
The registered mark is generic or customary mark
Within “5” years from registration, you may file a Cancellation case based
on previously filed or registered identical or confusing similar mark.
The registered of the mark is identical or similar to a prior registered trade name
If the petitioner believes he will be damaged by the registration of the mark
in some other way.
Mark is used in a fraudulent or unfair manner
Third party filed the mark as a trademark squatter
9. How can the asset value of a trademark be measured?
In order to know the asset value of a trademark, an IP valuation must be
conducted IP valuation uses a myriad to factors, such as financial standing, sales,
etc, to estimate the value of the trademark.
Due to the cost in employing IP valuators, IP valuation is not recommended
for small and medium enterprises.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
112
10. Does parallel importation of genuine products constitute trademark
infringement in the Philippines?
The law on trade marks in the Philippines, Section 166 of Republic Act
8293, the Intellectual Property Code (IP Code), allows the importation of
merchandise that are genuine products, sourced from the owner and registrant of
the brand that the product bears.
In Yu v Court of Appeals 217 SCRA 329, the exclusive distributor of
House of Mayfair wallcovering products in the Philippines brought
proceedings against his former goods dealer, Unisia Merchandising Co.
They had purchased merchandise from the House of Mayfair in England
and sold it in the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled:
Injunction is the appropriate remedy to prevent a wrongful interference
with contracts by strangers. Although its liability does not emanate from
the four corners of the contract establishing the exclusive license
agreement, in respect of which Unisia is not a party, its accountability is
an independent act generative of civil liability … To our mind, the right to
perform an exclusive distributorship agreement and to reap the profits
resulting from such performance are proprietary rights which a party may
protect, which otherwise may not be diminished, may be rendered illusory
by the expedient act of utilizing or interposing a person or firm to obtain
goods from the supplier to defeat the very purpose for which the
exclusive distributorship was conceptualized, at the expense of the sole
authorized distributor.
This does not necessarily mean that when a trade mark owner appoints
an exclusive licensee or distributor to market his products in the
Philippines and a person other than the exclusive licensee or distributor
imports the products, that person is liable for damages. The court must
find that fraud or deceit is present. In Yu v Court of Appeals , the court
found: that the House of Mayfair in England was duped into believing that
the goods ordered by the defendant were to be shipped to Nigeria only,
but the goods were actually sent to and sold in the Philippines. A ploy of
this character is akin to the scenario of a third person who induces a party
to renege or violate his undertaking under a contract thereby entitling the
offended part to legal relief (Article 1314, New Civil Code).
Chapter Ⅷ. Frequent FAQ
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
113
In Solid Triangle Sales Corp v The Sheriff of RTC Quezon City, Branch 93,
370 SCRA 509, a criminal action for unfair competition was brought by
Solid Triangle, the exclusive distributor of Mitsubishi Corporation of Japan,
against Sanly Corporation, the importer of Mitsubishi photographic paper,
under the law on trade marks. The court dismissed the action because
Sanly Corporation did not pass off the Mitsubishi photographic paper it
was selling as the product of another company. Solid Triangle in fact
admitted that the goods Sanly Corporation sold were genuine Mitsubishi
photographic paper.
The trademark law allows the parallel importation of drugs and medical
goods, but the goods are subject to the requirements of the Food, Drug
and Cosmetics Law before they can be sold to the public. Although
imported drugs are genuine, it is vital for them to comply with these
requirements, particularly registration with the Bureau of Food and Drugs.
Otherwise they cannot be sold to consumers. The Special Law on
Counterfeit Drugs, Republic Act 8203, classifies as counterfeit an
unregistered imported drug.
11. When using a trademark, what is a consideration to avoid an
infringement warning from others?
In order to minimize the risk of receiving infringement warning from
others, the before entering the Philippine market, it is best to conduct a due
diligence search for trade names and brands similar, whether registered or not, to
your trade name or brand of goods or services.
If you already have a registered trademark, the chances of receiving an
infringement warning from others is very minimal.
12. If a warning letter has been received or a lawsuit has been filed that the
trademark of another person is infringed, what countermeasures are there? Also,
what disadvantages would there be if the warning letter was left unattended?
Due to the varying factual nature of each case, the appropriate countermeasures
to be taken would vary.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
114
If a warning letter or lawsuit is received, it would be best to consult a
lawyer on the appropriate measures to be taken.
13. What action can be taken if I found someone is using the same
or similar trademark as mine?
After consulting with a lawyer, the lawyer will usually recommend the
following actions:
Send a demand letter asking the person to cease and desist from using the mark
[File an Opposition or Cancellation case
14. I applied for a trademark, but it's not registered yet. If I found
that a third party is using my trademark without a permission, is
there a way to exercise my rights before registration?
General rule is that you may not exercise your trademark rights before
registration. However, you exercise rights pertaining to unfair competition.
In unfair competition cases, you must prove that the use of the mark by
the third party is done in bad faith. Example, the third party employs tactics to
pass of his goods or services as coming from you.
15. If I produce products at a factory in the Philippines and export
them to a third country, do I need to register a trademark in the
Philippines?
No, Philippine trademark law is only considered with goods and services
for Philippine consumption.
16. Is it possible to register a brand that includes a specific area
name in the Philippines?
Yes, see discussion on location/ geographical origin Absolute grounds.
Chapter Ⅷ. Frequent FAQ
Counterm
easure to Trademark
Infringement
Trademark Infringem
ent casesTradem
ark related Governm
ent office and organization
Frequent FAQ
115
17. Is it necessary to register not only the products and services
currently in use, but also the products and services that are likely
to be used in the future at the time of application?
Yes, we recommend registering also goods and services which will be
likely be used in the future and already pertain to the same Nice class.
18. If my company address or personal address is changed, should I
apply for an amendment?
If the personal address or company address is changed, you must apply
for change of name/address with the IPOPHL.
19. The current trademark category(goods and services) and the trademark
category(goods and services) on the registration certification do
not match completely. Do I have to apply for a trademark again?
No, you may ask the IPOPHL to issue a a correct certificate of
registration.
Please note that the IPOPHL adopts the latest Nice classification and
automatically reclassify the goods and services upon the renewal of the mark.
20. How do I proceed with appeals if I get rejected from the trademark
registration?
You may file a petition or a notice of appeal to the Director of the Bureau
of Trademarks. If the petition is not granted, you may file appeal the ruling of the
Director of the Bureau of Trademarks with the Director General.
21. How to judge the similarity of the Korean trademark?
Aside from the requirement of translation and transliteration, Korean
trademarks are judged similarly to English trademarks.
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
116
22. How to judge the similarity of the English trademark?
Similarity of trademarks are judged using either the Dominancy or Holistic
test.
The dominancy test focuses on "the similarity of the prevalent or
dominant features of the competing trademarks that might cause
confusion, mistake, and deception in the mind of the purchasing public.
Duplication or imitation is not necessary; neither is it required that the
mark sought to be registered suggests an effort to imitate. Given more
consideration are the aural and visual impressions created by the marks
on the buyers of goods, giving little weight to factors like prices, quality,
sales outlets, and market segments."
On the other hand, the holistic or totality test necessitates a
"consideration of the entirety of the marks as applied to the products,
including the labels and packaging, in determining confusing similarity.
The discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the
predominant words, but also on the other features appearing on both
labels so that the observer may draw conclusion on whether one is
confusingly similar to the other." (Wilton Dy v. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS
G.R. No. 186088, March 22, 2017)
23. Is it possible to add the category(goods or services) after
registering the trademark?
No, you may not add goods or services after registration.
24. Can I apply for a trademark directly without hiring a lawyer?
Yes, you may apply for trademark directly without a lawyer. However, if
you are not a resident of the Philippines you are required to appoint a Philippine
resident agent.
KOTRA자료 20-230
Trademark Guidebook of the Philippines
발 행 인 : 권 평 오
발 행 처 : KOTRA (해외지재권실, 마닐라무역관(IP-DESK))
발 행 일 : 2020년 12월
주 소 : (06792) 서울시 서초구 헌릉로 13
전 화 : 02-3460-3357
홈페이지 : www.kotra.or.kr
저 자 : Neptali L. Bulilan 변호사Romeo B. Fortea 변호사Sapalo Velez Bundang & Bulilan Law Offices
ISBN979-11-6490-552-2 (93320)979-11-6490-553-9 (95320)(PDF)
Copyright ⓒ by KOTRA, All rights reserved.
이 책의 저작권은 KOTRA에 있습니다.
저작권법에 의해 보호를 받는 저작물이므로
대한무역투자진흥공사의 동의없이 무단 전재 및 복제를 금합니다.