Higit Pa Susunod na Blog» Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

ELMER AT RANDOM
Anything from mundane to ethereal; from puerile to polemical.

Thursday, June 19, 2008 About Me

Elmer Brabante
Intellectual Property Law Reviewer Student of law, professor
on-leave, arm-chair social
THE LAW ON TRADEMARKS, SERVICE MARKS activist, culture voyeur, oragon.
AND TRADE NAMES View my complete profile
Q. What is a monopoly?
A. It is the control obtained by one supplier over the commercial market within a given
region (Black’s) Listed

Q. Is the exercise of Intellectual Property Law a form of monopoly? PHBAR.ORG

A. In a way. Copyright laws allow others to enjoy an author’s economic rights when there Law & Legal Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog
is permission. Trademarks protect goodwill, it does not prevent production of similar Directory
goods. Patent protection lasts for only 17 years.

Q. If s, why is it allowed, since the Constitution prohibits monopolies? JS-Kit Comments

A. Because it provides incentive for innovation and technological advancement.
There was an error in this gadget
Q. The Constitution provides, “the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use,
and disposition of property and its increments.” How does this relate to IP law?
A. IP Law can be viewed as an exercise of this regulation. Copyright lasts for only 50 random wisdom
years. Patent protection for 17 years. Trademarks have to be used. To measure you by your smallest deed is
to reckon the power of the ocean by the
Sec. 121. Definitions. - As used in Part III, the following terms have the following frailty of its foam; to judge you by your
meanings: failures is to cast blame upon the
121.1. "Mark" means any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or seasons for their inconstancy. -- Kahlil
services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked Gibran
container of goods; (Sec. 38, R. A. No. 166a)
Blog Archive
121.2. "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, ►  2011 (2)
including the quality of goods or services of different enterprises which use the sign ►  2010 (7)
under the control of the registered owner of the collective mark; (Sec. 40, R. A. No. 166a) ►  2009 (28)
▼  2008 (56)
121.3. "Trade name" means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an
►  December (3)
enterprise; (Sec. 38, R. A. No. 166a)
►  October (1)
121.4. "Bureau" means the Bureau of Trademarks; ►  September (10)

►  July (4)
121.5. "Director" means the Director of Trademarks;
▼  June (28)
►  Jun 26 (9)
121.6. "Regulations" means the Rules of Practice in Trademarks and Service Marks
formulated by the Director of Trademarks and approved by the Director General; and ►  Jun 25 (1)
►  Jun 22 (2)
121.7. "Examiner" means the trademark examiner. (Sec. 38, R. A. No. 166a) ▼  Jun 19 (15)
Q. Can a trademark be a tradename at the same time?
VAT Outline
A. Yes.
Intellectual Property Law
Reviewer
Q. Can smell be a proper trademark?
A. The law does not seem to allow it, since a “mark” is defined as a visible sign. Criminal Law I Notes By Judge
Oscar Pimentel

Q. Can sound be a proper trademark? E.g. the distinctive sound of a Harley Davidson Insurance Reviewer

A. No. It must be a visible sign, under the IP code, and under an American case. Wills Case Doctrines
Taxation Reviewer 8
Sec. 122. How Marks are Acquired. - The rights in a mark shall be acquired through
Taxation Reviewer 7
registration made validly in accordance with the provisions of this law. (Sec. 2-A, R. A.
Taxation Reviewer 6
No. 166a) Taxation Reviewer 5
Q. How is trademark protection acquired? Taxation Reviewer 4
A. By registration.
Taxation Reviewer 3

Q. A Singapore company sells products over the internet to the Philippines. It does not Taxation Reviewer 2
have an office in RP. If a Philippine company sells products here with the name of the Taxation Reviewer 1
Singapore company, can the Singapore company sue here in the Philippines, not having Special Penal Laws, Reviewer 2
registered its trademark here?
Special Penal Laws Reviewer,
A. Yes, it may sue. Sec. 160 provides: Any foreign national or juridical person who meets Part 1
the requirements of Section 3 of this Act and does not engage in business in the
Philippines may bring a civil or administrative action hereunder for opposition, ►  Jun 15 (1)
cancellation, infringement, unfair competition, or false designation of origin and false
►  March (3)
description, whether or not it is licensed to do business in the Philippines under existing
►  February (2)
laws.
►  January (5)
Q. Does it matter where title transfers, like if it were FOB Manila or FOB Singapore?
A. No.
Random Links
Sec. 123. Registrability. - Ara
123.1. A mark cannot be registered if it:
Arellano University Law
Arnel Mateo
(a) Consists of immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter, or matter which may disparage
Atty. Fred Pamaos
or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or
national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute; Atty. Joan de Venecia
Atty. Ma. Florina Binalay
(b) Consists of the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the Philippines or any of its Atty. Macka
political subdivisions, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof; Atty. Oman
Atty. Punzi
(c) Consists of a name, portrait or signature identifying a particular living individual
Atty. Ralph Sarmiento
except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President
Atty. Ralph Sarmiento 2
of the Philippines, during the life of his widow, if any, except by written consent of the
widow; Atty. Renato Bautista
Atty. Rinchel Aurellana
(d) Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a mark with Baao Blog
an earlier filing or priority date, in respect of: Balangibog
(i) The same goods or services, or Ban Balikatan
(ii) Closely related goods or services, or Batasnatin
(iii) If it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion;
BAYAN MUNA
BAYAN MUNA
(e) 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 Ben P
internationally and in the Philippines, whether or not it is registered here, as being Bert M. Drona
already the mark of a person other than the applicant for registration, and used for Bicol homepage
identical or similar goods or services: Provided, That in determining whether a mark is Bicol Net
well-known, account shall be taken of the knowledge of the relevant sector of the public, Blimpi (Grace)
rather than of the public at large, including knowledge in the Philippines which has been
Butch Guerrero
obtained as a result of the promotion of the mark;
Catholic.org
Celio
(f) 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 Chan Robles Law Library
in the Philippines with respect to goods or services which are not similar to those with Conrado de Quiroz
respect to which registration is applied for: Provided, That use of the mark in relation to Cris Bonoan
those goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services, Dean Francis Alfar
and the owner of the registered mark: Provided further, That the interests of the owner Ed Samar
of the registered mark are likely to be damaged by such use;
Elbert Or
Elmer Brabante: Facebook
(g) Is likely to mislead the public, particularly as to the nature, quality, characteristics or
geographical origin of the goods or services; Elmer Brabante: Friendster
Elmer Brabante: Pace Lex et Sapientia
(h) Consists exclusively of signs that are generic for the goods or services that they seek Emmanuel Dumlao
to identify; Eric Gamalinda
Eric John Calagui
(i) Consists exclusively of signs or of indications that have become customary or usual
Eugene Evasco
to designate the goods or services in everyday language or in bona fide and established
F. Sionil Jose
trade practice;
FCJ Art Panganiban

(j) Consists exclusively of signs or of indications that may serve in trade to designate the Frank Peñones
Guilders (CEGP)
kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, time or production of Ian Rosales Casocot
the goods or rendering of the services, or other characteristics of the goods or services; Ibon Facts and Figures
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(k) Consists of shapes that may be necessitated by technical factors or by the nature of
Jason Changcoco
the goods themselves or factors that affect their intrinsic value;
Jazz Llana

(l) Consists of color alone, unless defined by a given form; or Jessica Zafra
JLP Law
(m) Is contrary to public order or morality. Jocelyn Bisuña
Jose Dalisay
123.2. As regards signs or devices mentioned in paragraphs (j), (k), and (l), nothing shall Jose Lacaba
prevent the registration of any such sign or device which has become distinctive in
Jose Wendell Capili
relation to the goods for which registration is requested as a result of the use that have
Kabulig
been made of it in commerce in the Philippines. The Office may accept as prima facie
Ken Ishikawa
evidence that the mark has become distinctive, as used in connection with the
applicant’s goods or services in commerce, proof of substantially exclusive and Kristian Cordero
continuous use thereof by the applicant in commerce in the Philippines for five (5) years Lakambini Sitoy
before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made. Larry Ypil
Legal.friendhood.net
123.3. The nature of the goods to which the mark is applied will not constitute an Lito Basilio
obstacle to registration. (Sec. 4, R. A. No. 166a)
Lorille T. Dacasin
Macky Ramirez
A mark cannot be registered if it:
Marjueve Palencia

(a) immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter Mark Angeles

Marne Kilates
(b) flag or coat of arms Merlinda Bobis
Mykel Andrada
(c) name of a particular living individual or portrait of a deceased President of the Ohmar Cullang
Philippines
Palencia Yahoo Group
phBar.org
(d) Is identical with a registered mark as to :
(i) The same goods or services, or Pinoy Law Stude
(ii) Closely related goods or services, or Pinoylaw.net
(iii) If it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion; Rax
Raymund Villanueva
Amigo v. Cluet Peabody – Idem Sonans Remontado
354 SCRA 434 (2001)
Rizaldy Manrique
Roland Tolentino
Cluet (NY) filed for cancellation of Amigo (RP) TM for “Gold Toe.” Cluet owns “Gold Top.
Samasa PUP
Cluet alleged Amigo uses similar logo, uses the word “linenized” which is their registered
TM. Director of Patents and CA ruled for cancellation, based on application of 1) idem Sans Balderdash
sonans rule and 2) existence of a confusing similarity in appearance between the Smoke
trademarks. Amigo argues that “Gold Toe” and “Gold Top” do not sound alike and are Supreme Court
pronounced differently. Since the words “gold” and “toe” are generic, Cluet has no right Teddy Casiño
to exclusive use. Teray Carabuena
The Citizen On Mars
HELD: Idem sonans argument incorrect. Admittedly the pronunciation of Gold Top and
The Warrior Lawyer
Gold Toe, do not by themselves, cause confusion. However, there is hardly a variance in
the appearance of the logo’s. SC used the dominancy test and the holistic test. In either Ugat Iriga
test, there is an obvious colorable imitation. UM Exclusive
Umpil
Nestle v. CA – Master not generic Vic Nierva
356 SCRA 207 (2001) Vim Nadera
Vincetoy
CFC Corp. filed application for registration of Flavor Master instant coffee. Nestle filed
Virgilio Rivas
notice of opposition claiming trademark is confusingly similar for Master Roast and
Vlad Gonzales
Master Blend are its own TM. Nestle claims use of CFC will cause confusion and
deceive purchasers as dominant word present in the three trademarks is Master. CA Wilfredo Pascual
used holistic test, Nestle claims dominancy test should be used. Wilson de Jesus
Yedylicious
HELD: Correct. Test is ordinary purchaser who in buying more common and less Yol Jamendang
expensive household products is less inclined to closely examine specific details of Zosimo Quibilan Jr.
similarities and dissimilarities. The word Master is neither a generic nor a descriptive
term, and as such, said term cannot be invalidated as a trademark and may be legally
protected. A generic term is the common descriptive name of an article or substance, Search This Blog
and a descriptive term conveys the characteristics, functions, qualities and ingredient of Search
a product to one who has never seen it and does not know what it is. Master is a How do you rate this blog?
suggestive term brought about by the advertising scheme of Nestle, as when it uses
Excellent   0 (0%)
Jaworski and Puno.
Good   0 (0%)
Fair   0 (0%)
(e) similar to, or translation of, internationally known mark, registered or not as to same
Trash   0 (0%)
goods
Votes so far: 0
(f) similar to, or translation of, internationally known mark, when registered, as to all Poll closed
goods.

Canon v. CA Followers
Mga sumusubaybay (10)
NSR Rubber filed an application for the registration of the mark Canon for Sandals.
Canon (Japan) filed an opposition, alleging that it will be damaged by the registration of
Canon for Sandals. Canon manufactures chemical products, photographic and
cinematographic instruments, and electrical instruments. The products manufactured by
the parties are dissimilar but Canon Japan points out that it has branched out its
Sundin
business on various goods including footwear.

Held: Ordinarily, ownership of trademark is a property right which is entitled to There was an error in this gadget
protection. However, when a TM is used for a product in which the other party does not
deal, the use of the same trademark on the latter’s product cannot be validly objected to.
The certificate of registration shown by Canon Japan in RP and other countries show Slang of the Day
that the covered goods are paints, chemical products and toners. Trademark owner is
entitled to protection when junior user forestalls the normal expansion of the business, Unsupported feature:
but Canon Japan has failed to attach evidence that would convince that it has also [analytics]
embarked in the production of footwear products.

Q. Do you agree with the decision?

A. Proper answer: The decision interpreted the law then. The case would have been
decided differently today, due to the amendments introduced by Sec. 123.1 (e).

Q. Why is this the proper answer?

A. Case was drafted by Negre when he was in the Bureau of Trademarks.
There was an error in this gadget

(g) misleading as to the nature, quality, characteristics or geographical origin of the

There was an error in this gadget
goods or services;

(h) generic Quotation of the Day

Kellogg v. National Biscuit Company

Server Overloaded or Application
Nabisco brought a suit against Kellogg to enjoin unfair competition in the manufacture Error.
and sale of breakfast food known as shredded wheat. Kellogg, like Nabisco, uses the There was an error processing your request. It is
most likely a temporary problem.
name shredded wheat and produces it in pillow-shaped form. Shredded wheat was Please use the form below to re-submit your query.
introduced in 1893 by Perky and the patent expired in 1895, going into public domain.
Word (phrase):
Nabisco was the first manufacturer. Nabisco does not claim exclusive right to make
shredded wheat but claims exclusive right to the trade name “Shredded Wheat.” Nabisco Word Look up
also claims that it has acquired a secondary meaning.
Persistent errors? We would like to hear from you. Please submit as m
Held: Nabisco has no exclusive right to use the term “Shredded Wheat” as a trade name, problem you are having.

for that is the generic term of the article which describes it with a fair degree of
accuracy. Since the term is generic, the original maker of the product acquired no
exclusive right to use it. There is no basis for applying the doctrine of secondary
meaning. To establish a trade name, plaintiff must show more than a subordinate
meaning, but must show that the primary significance of the term in the minds of the Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc.
consuming public is not the product but the producer.

Q. Can you trademark the terms thermos, cellophane, aspirin? There was an error in this gadget
A. No. These used to be big marks, but because of “improper use” (not non-use) they
were abandoned. Xerox is now spending billions in advertising to reclaim the trademark.
There was an error in this gadget

(i) descriptive
Ina
Q. Can a descriptive word be appropriated?
A. No. But it can be appropriated when used in combination with other words.
Romero v. Maiden Form Inc.

Maidenform, a foreign corporation, filed an application for registration of the trademark

Adagio for the brassieres it manufactures. This was alleged to have first been used in
US in 1937 and in RP in 1946. This was granted. Romero filed a petition for cancellation
on the ground that it is a common descriptive name of an article. It was said that that
Adagio has become a common descriptive name of a particular style of brassiere and is
unregistrable. St. Rose of Lima, the
Philippine patroness
Held: No merit. Adagio is a musical term meaning slow or easy manner first used by
owners because they are musically inclined. They also adopted other terms such as
Etude, Overture, Chansonette. The fact that said mark is used also to designate a
particular style of brassiere does not affect its registrability as a trademark. Its long and
continuous use has not rendered it merely descriptive. Widespread dissemination does
not justify the [oppositor’s] use of the trademark.

Ong Ai Gui v. Director

Ong Ai Gui filed an application for the registration of the tradename, “20th Century Nylon
Shirts Factory.” E. I. Du Pont filed an opposition on the ground that the word “nylon” was
a name coined by Du Pont as a generic name of a synthetic fabric and is a generic term, St. Bartholomew Parish
the use of which is descriptive and the use would cause confusion in trade. Opposition
was dismissed but director asked the word “nylon” be disclaimed. Ong appeals.

Held: The tradename may be registered, but it may not be entitled to exclusive use of the
terms “shirt factory” and “nylon” because the terms are merely descriptive or general
terms, incapable of appropriation by any single individual to the exclusion of others. This
is because all persons have an equal right to produce and vend similar articles and they
also have the right to describe them properly and to use appropriate language. There was an error in this gadget

Q. Can generic terms be appropriated by long use? There was an error in this gadget
A. no. Only descriptive words can be appropriated by long use.

Q. “Xerox” is descriptive or generic?

A. Seems to be generic, since it is found in the dictionary as a verb.

(j) 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;

Q. Is a name denoting geographical location registrable as a trademark?

Sintang Paaralan
A. General rule: Can’t be used when
1. It induces public to believe that it is manufactured in a place where it is not really
manufactured there, e.g. Champagne is a sparkling wine from a particular city in France;
no other wine can be called Champagne.
2. If that place is known for the goods, you can’t register, e.g. Batangas is known for its
coffee
Exception: If that place is not particularly known for products of that kind, e.g. Baguio Oil,
Seattle’s Best
Bryle Napay's Winning
(k) shapes Drawing from Shoot Nations

Kellogg v. Nabisco

Nabisco claims the exclusive right to make it in pillow-shaped form. It is urged that all
possibility of deception and confusion would be removed it Kellogg would adopt another
form other than the pillow shape.

Held: The evidence is persuasive that this form is functional – that the cost of the
biscuit would be increased and its high quality lessened if some other form were
substituted for the pillow shape.

In Re Weber from shoot nations

The examining attorney of the Trademark Board refused registration of Weber’s

barbecue grills as trademarks on the ground of functionality.
Held. Wrong. The Trademark Trial and Appeals Board found that the examining attorney
erred in refusing registration in the absence of evidence that the grill’s round
configuration was a superior design which other manufacturers needed to be able to
use in order to compete effectively. Trade dress is mechanically functional when its
elements are so utilitarian or superior to alternative elements that denying these
elements to competitors inhibits competition. The factors that show mechanical
functionality of trade dress include 1) if a utility patent discloses the utilitarian
advantages of the design, 2) the utilitarian advantages are touted through advertising, 3) another from shoot nations
there is an unavailability of alternative designs, and 4) the design is the result of a
relatively simple or inexpensive manufacturing method. In this case, the kettle body and
legs configuration for barbecue grills was found NOT de jure functional. Evidence was
found sufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness. Hence, it can be registered.

Q. What is different from this case and Kellogg?

A. Here, there is finding that the shape was not entirely just functional, as in Kellogg.
National Geographic POD
(l) color

(m) Is contrary to public order or morality.

Secondary meaning

Q. Cerveza Negra means “Black Beer” in Spanish, can it be registered?

A. Yes, it has acquired secondary meaning

Arce Sons v. Selecta

Selecta Biscuit filed a petition for the registration of the word Selecta as trademark to be
used on its bakery products. Arce filed an opposition saying that it has continuously Endangered Animal of the
used that word in its products. It used this on its milk products and as the name of a Day
bakery. Director granted trademark because the word as used by Arce points only to the
place of business or location of its restaurant. Unsupported feature:
[analytics]
Held: Arce has made use of Selecta not only as a tradename, indicative of the location of
the restaurant but also as a trademark to indicate the goods it offers for sale to the
public. The word Selecta is an ordinary or common word but once adopted or coined in
connection with one’s business as an emblem or as a badge of authenticity, it may
acquire a secondary meaning as to be exclusively associated with its products and
business.

Q. Is “premium” a proper mark?

A. No. It is descriptive.
Friends and Comrades
Etepha v. Director

Westmont (NY) sought registration of Atussin, a medical expectorant antihistamine.

Etepha (liechtenstin) objected, saying Atussin is confusingly similar to Pertussin and
that the buying public will be misled into believing that Westmont’s product is that of
Etepha’s which enjoys goodwill.

Held: Tussin is a Latin rootword meaning cough. Tussin is merely descriptive; it is

generic; it furnishes to the buyer no indication of the origin of the goods. Thus, it is From 1999 in Bicol, clockwise from left:
Buboy Aguay, Dr. Edjam Meceda, Prof.
barred from registration as a tradename. While tussin by itself cannot be used
Jo Bisuña, moi; during light moments in
exclusively, it may become a subject of trademark by combination with another word of
between anti-VFA campaigns.
phrase.
Here, the two are entirely different in colors, content and arrangement so the contrast is
so pronounced that the label cannot be mistaken for another. They also don’t sound
alike when pronounced. Also, medicinal preparations are unlike articles of everyday use
which may freely be obtained by anyone. A buyer of medicine must first go to a doctor
for instructions on what to purchase, and he is cautious and would examine the product
sold to him.

Q. Do you agree with this case?

A. Hmm… maybe not, since you should take the point of view of an ordinary consumer
who doesn’t know what tussis means.
 What's there to do next?
Q. Would the case have been decided in the same manner if it involved veterinary
medicine?
A. Probably. People don’t usually buy vet medicine so they would be careful if they do.

Philippine Nut Industry v. Standard Brands

Philippine Nut obtained registration of “Philippine Planters Cordial Peanuts.” On its

salted peanuts. Standard Brands, a foreign corporation filed for the cancellation of
registration saying that it was the owner of “Planters Cocktail Peanuts” trademark and
that Phil Nut closely resembles and is confusingly similar to its own trademark. Phil Nut
claims that “Planters” cannot be considered a dominant feature of the product since it is
merely descriptive.

Held: Without merit. Planters is an ordinary word but it is used in the label not to
describe the nature of the product but to project the source or origin of the salted
peanuts. Based from the logos, it is true that other words are displayed (cordial and
cocktail) but these are mere adjectives. As a whole, it is the word Planters which draws
the attention of the buyer and leads him to conclude that the salted peanuts originate
There was an error in this gadget
from one and the same manufacturer. It is true that no producer may have a monopoly
of any color scheme or form of words in a label but when a competitor adopts a
distinctive or dominant mark or feature of another’s trademark, the intent to pass to the There was an error in this gadget

public his product as that of another is quite obvious.

Subscribe To
Secondary meaning – a word originally incapable of exclusive appropriation may
nevertheless have been used so long and so exclusively by one producer with reference Posts
to his article that, in that trade and to that branch of the purchasing public, the word or
Comments
phrase has come to mean that the article was his product. Here, there is evidence to
show that the term Planters has become a distinctive mark or symbol as salted peanuts
are concerned. From shoot nations

E Spinner v. Neuss Hesslein Corp.

E Spinner (England) is engaged in manufacture and sale of textiles. It sells khaki cloth in
RP under the brand Wigan. Neuss Hesslein (US) came to RP later and sold khakis. It sold
it under the Five Soldiers brand then it later asked its NY office to print the word Wigan
conspicuously on the khakis intended for sale in RP. Wigan is used in commercial
parlance as the name of a canvass-like cotton fabric used to stiffen parts of garments.
Neuss Hesslein claims to use the word to indicate color, saying that US dealers are
accustomed to use the word Wigan to indicate a color of khaki cloth. E. Spinner files
action to restrain use of the word Wigan, claiming that it uses that word to indicate
quality.

Held: The persons most to be considered is the consumer and when the word Wigan is
found on khaki, the ultimate buyer or the consumer who would be led to suppose that
the goods are sold by E Spinner. It makes no difference that dealers in the article are not
deceived. They are informed and usually know what they are buying. The law concerns
itself with the casual purchaser who knows the commodity only by its name. The word
Wigan here is used in an entirely artificial sense and its association with quality had its
origin exclusively in the use which E Spinner originally intended.
There was an error in this gadget

Intel v. Advanced Micro Devices

Intel uses the 386 designation for processor microchips. AMD probably used this to
designate its own products and Intel filed a case against AMD.

Held: AMD argued successfully that Intel’s 386 designation for processor microchips
was generic. Intel was subsequently unsuccessful in registering 486 or i486. Hence, it
switched to the “Pentium” and “Celeron” names. Note that in the US, trademark
protection is acquired via use, not registration. Because Intel’s purported mark is
unregistered, Intel has the burden of proof on the issue of genericness of the asserted
mark

Q. Why is the E. Spinner decision different from the Intel decision?

A. Because in Intel, the mark was generic. In E. Spinner, the mark is descriptive of quality
because it is arbitrary.
Ana Ang v. Toribio Teodoro

Teodoro used “Ang Tibay” for slippers and shoes since 1910. Ang registered “Ang Tibay”
for shorts and shirts on 1932. Teodoro filed a complaint to cancel the registration of the
TM of Ana Ang. He claims that Ana Ang has not proven that she spent money for
advertising Ang Tibay shirts and pants. Ana Ang claims that the term is descriptive and
that there is no secondary meaning attached to the term, and that the goods are
different and are not likely to mislead the general public as to their origin.

Held: “Ang Tibay” is not a descriptive term but a fanciful or coined phrase which may be
legally appropriated. Ang Tibay is an exclamation denoting admiration of strength, and
can be translated to mean “How strong!” Ang Tibay has also acquired a secondary
meaning because the exclusive use of the phrase for Teodoro’s product has allowed it
to acquire a proprietary connotation. As to the argument that the goods are not similar,
although two noncompeting articles may be classified under two different classes by
the Patent office, nevertheless, if simultaneous use on them would be likely to cause
confusion as to the source or origin, then there can be unfair competition. Also, it would
prevent the natural expansion of his business and it would cause the business to be
confused with the second user.

Q. Is “Ang Tibay” descriptive?

A. Court held that it is a fanciful or coined term. The Court says that the proper
descriptive term is “matibay” and not “Ang Tibay.”

Q. Is grammar important?
A. No (?)

Q. Is the use of famous marks on unrelated goods permissible?

A. Although they are noncompeting, if simultaneous use will cause confusion, it will not
be permissible.

Q. What are the kinds of words?

A. The words are classified to:
1. common words
a. generic – never capable of registration
b. descriptive – there is immediate association
- not registrable except when there is secondary meaning, or used with other words
c. suggestive – requires imegination/deduction
2. fanciful/coined - e.g. Kodak
3. arbitrary - e.g. Apple Computer

Sec. 124. Requirements of Application. -

124.1. The application for the registration of the mark shall be in Filipino or in English
and shall contain the following:
(a) A request for registration;

(b) The name and address of the applicant;

(c) The name of a State of which the applicant is a national or where he has domicile;
and the name of a State in which the applicant has a real and effective industrial or
commercial establishment, if any;

(d) Where the applicant is a juridical entity, the law under which it is organized and
existing;

(e) The appointment of an agent or representative, if the applicant is not domiciled in the
Philippines;

(f) Where the applicant claims the priority of an earlier application, an indication of:
(i) The name of the State with whose national office the earlier application was filed or it
filed with an office other than a national office, the name of that office,
(ii) The date on which the earlier application was filed, and
(iii) Where available, the application number of the earlier application;

(g) Where the applicant claims color as a distinctive feature of the mark, a statement to
that effect as well as the name or names of the color or colors claimed and an
indication, in respect of each color, of the principal parts of the mark which are in that
color;

(h) Where the mark is a three-dimensional mark, a statement to that effect;

(i) One or more reproductions of the mark, as prescribed in the Regulations;

(j) A transliteration or translation of the mark or of some parts of the mark, as prescribed
in the Regulations;

(k) The names of the goods or services for which the registration is sought, grouped
according to the classes of the Nice Classification, together with the number of the
class of the said Classification to which each group of goods or services belongs; and

(l) A signature by, or other self-identification of, the applicant or his representative.

124.2. The applicant or the registrant shall file a declaration of actual use of the mark
with evidence to that effect, as prescribed by the Regulations within three (3) years from
the filing date of the application. Otherwise, the application shall be refused or the mark
shall be removed from the Register by the Director.

124.3. One (1) application may relate to several goods and/or services, whether they
belong to one (1) class or to several classes of the Nice Classification.

124.4. If during the examination of the application, the Office finds factual basis to
reasonably doubt the veracity of any indication or element in the application, it may
require the applicant to submit sufficient evidence to remove the doubt. (Sec. 5, R. A.
No. 166a)

Sec. 125. Representation; Address for Service. - If the applicant is not domiciled or has
no real and effective commercial establishment in the Philippines, he shall designate by
a written document filed in the office, the name and address of a Philippine resident who
may be served notices or process in proceedings affecting the mark. Such notices or
services may be served upon the person so designated by leaving a copy thereof at the
address specified in the last designation filed. If the person so designated cannot be
found at the address given in the last designation, such notice or process may be served
upon the Director. (Sec. 3, R. A. No. 166a)

Sec. 126. Disclaimers. - The Office may allow or require the applicant to disclaim an
unregistrable component of an otherwise registrable mark but such disclaimer shall not
prejudice or affect the applicant’s or owner’s rights then existing or thereafter arising in
the disclaimed matter, nor such shall disclaimer prejudice or affect the applicant’s or
owner’s right on another application of later date if the disclaimed matter became
distinctive of the applicant’s or owner’s goods, business or services. (Sec. 13, R. A. No.
166a)

Sec. 127. Filing Date. -

127.1. Requirements. - The filing date of an application shall be the date on which the
Office received the following indications and elements in English or Filipino:
(a) An express or implicit indication that the registration of a mark is sought;
(b) The identity of the applicant;
(c) Indications sufficient to contact the applicant or his representative, if any;
(d) A reproduction of the mark whose registration is sought; and
(e) The list of the goods or services for which the registration is sought.

127.2 No filing date shall be accorded until the required fee is paid. (n)

Sec. 128. Single Registration for Goods and/or Services. - Where goods and/or services
belonging to several classes of the Nice Classification have been included in one (1)
application, such an application shall result in one registration. (n)

Sec. 129. Division of Application. - Any application referring to several goods or services,
hereafter referred to as the "initial application," may be divided by the applicant into two
(2) or more applications, hereafter referred to as the "divisional applications," by
distributing among the latter the goods or services referred to in the initial application.
The divisional applications shall preserve the filing date of the initial application or the
benefit of the right of priority. (n)

Sec. 130. Signature and Other Means of Self-Identification. -

130.1. Where a signature is required, the Office shall accept:
(a) A hand-written signature; or
(b) The use of other forms of signature, such as a printed or stamped signature, or the
use of a seal, instead of a hand-written signature: Provided, That where a seal is used, it
should be accompanied by an indication in letters of the name of the signatory.

130.2. The Office shall accept communications to it by telecopier, or by electronic

means subject to the conditions or requirements that will be prescribed by the
Regulations. When communications are made by telefacsimile, the reproduction of the
signature, or the reproduction of the seal together with, where required, the indication in
letters of the name of the natural person whose seal is used, appears. The original
communications must be received by the Office within thirty (30) days from date of
receipt of the telefacsimile.

130.3. No attestation, notarization, authentication, legalization or other certification of

any signature or other means of self-identification referred to in the preceding
paragraphs, will be required, except, where the signature concerns the surrender of a
registration. (n)

Sec. 131. Priority Right. -

131.1. An application for registration of a mark filed in the Philippines by a person
referred to in Section 3, 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.

131.2. No registration of a mark in the Philippines by a person described in this section

shall be granted until such mark has been registered in the country of origin of the
applicant.

131.3. Nothing in this section shall entitle the owner of a registration granted under this
section to sue for acts committed prior to the date on which his mark was registered in
this country: Provided, That, notwithstanding the foregoing, the owner of a well-known
mark as defined in Section 123.1(e) of this Act, that is not registered in the Philippines,
may, against an identical or confusingly similar mark, oppose its registration, or petition
the cancellation of its registration or sue for unfair competition, without prejudice to
availing himself of other remedies provided for under the law.

131.4. In like manner and subject to the same conditions and requirements, the right
provided in this section may be based upon a subsequent regularly filed application in
the same foreign country: Provided, That any foreign application filed prior to such
subsequent application has been withdrawn, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of,
without having been laid open to public inspection and without leaving any rights
outstanding, and has not served, nor thereafter shall serve, as a basis for claiming a right
of priority. (Sec. 37, R. A. No. 166a)

Sec. 132. Application Number and Filing Date. -

132.1. The Office shall examine whether the application satisfies the requirements for
the grant of a filing date as provided in Section 127 and Regulations relating thereto. If
the application does not satisfy the filing requirements, the Office shall notify the
applicant who shall within a period fixed by the Regulations complete or correct the
application as required, otherwise, the application shall be considered withdrawn.

132.2 Once an application meets the filing requirements of Section 127, it shall be
numbered in the sequential order, and the applicant shall be informed of the application
number and the filing date of the application will be deemed to have been abandoned.
(n)

Sec. 133. Examination and Publication. -

133.1. Once the application meets the filing requirements of Section 127, the Office shall
examine whether the application meets the requirements of Section 124 and the mark
as defined in Section 121 is registrable under Section 123.

133.2. Where the Office finds that the conditions referred to in Subsection 133.1 are
fulfilled, it shall, upon payment of the prescribed fee. Forthwith cause the application, as
filed, to be published in the prescribed manner.

133.3. If after the examination, the applicant is not entitled to registration for any reason,
the Office shall advise the applicant thereof and the reasons therefor. The applicant
shall have a period of four (4) months in which to reply or amend his application, which
shall then be re-examined. The Regulations shall determine the procedure for the re-
examination or revival of an application as well as the appeal to the Director of
Trademarks from any final action by the Examiner.

133.4. An abandoned application may be revived as a pending application within three

(3) months from the date of abandonment, upon good cause shown and the payment of
the required fee.

133.5. The final decision of refusal of the Director of Trademarks shall be appealable to
the Director General in accordance with the procedure fixed by the Regulations. (Sec. 7,
R. A. No. 166a)

Sec. 134. Opposition. - Any person who believes that he would be damaged by the
registration of a mark may, upon payment of the required fee and within thirty (30) days
after the publication referred to in Subsection 133.2, file with the Office an opposition to
the application. Such opposition shall be in writing and verified by the oppositor or by
any person on his behalf who knows the facts, and shall specify the grounds on which it
is based and include a statement of the facts relied upon. Copies of certificates of
registration of marks registered in other countries or other supporting documents
mentioned in the opposition shall be filed therewith, together with the translation in
English, if not in the English language. For good cause shown and upon payment of the
required surcharge, the time for filing an opposition may be extended by the Director of
Legal Affairs, who shall notify the applicant of such extension. The Regulations shall fix
the maximum period of time within which to file the opposition. (Sec. 8, R. A. No. 165a)

Sec. 135. Notice and Hearing. - Upon the filing of an opposition, the Office shall serve
notice of the filing on the applicant, and of the date of the hearing thereof upon the
applicant and the oppositor and all other persons having any right, title or interest in the
mark covered by the application, as appear of record in the Office. (Sec. 9 R. A. No. 165)

Sec. 136. Issuance and Publication of Certificate. - When the period for filing the
opposition has expired, or when the Director of Legal Affairs shall have denied the
opposition, the Office upon payment of the required fee, shall issue the certificate of
registration. Upon issuance of a certificate of registration, notice thereof making
reference to the publication of the application shall be published in the IPO Gazette.
(Sec. 10, R. A. No. 165)

Sec. 137. Registration of Mark and Issuance of a Certificate to the Owner or his
Assignee. -
137.1. The Office shall maintain a Register in which shall be registered marks, numbered
in the order of their registration, and all transactions in respect of each mark, required to
be recorded by virtue of this law.

137.2. The registration of a mark shall include a reproduction of the mark and shall
mention: its number; the name and address of the registered owner and, if the registered
owner’s address is outside the country, his address for service within the country; the
dates of application and registration; if priority is claimed, an indication of this fact, and
the number, date and country of the application, basis of the priority claims; the list of
goods or services in respect of which registration has been granted, with the indication
of the corresponding class or classes; and such other data as the Regulations may
prescribe from time to time.

137.3. A certificate of registration of a mark may be issued to the assignee of the

applicant: Provided, That the assignment is recorded in the Office. In case of a change
of ownership, the Office shall at the written request signed by the owner, or his
representative, or by the new owner, or his representative and upon a proper showing
and the payment of the prescribed fee, issue to such assignee a new certificate of
registration of the said mark in the name of such assignee, and for the unexpired part of
the original period.

137.4. The Office shall record any change of address, or address for service, which shall
be notified to it by the registered owner.

137.5. In the absence of any provision to the contrary in this Act, communications to be
made to the registered owner by virtue of this Act shall be sent to him at his last
recorded address and, at the same, at his last recorded address for service.

Sec. 138. Certificates of Registration. - A certificate of registration of a mark shall be

prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, the registrant’s ownership of the
mark, and of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the same in connection with the
goods or services and those that are related thereto specified in the certificate.

Fabrege v. CA

Co Beng Kay registered “Brute” for use on shirts, shoes and slippers. Fabrege, owner of
the TM “Brut” for use on after shave lotion, shaving cream, deodorant, files opposition.
Fabrege claims that it will cause confusion.

Held: Co Beng Kay may be permitted to register, since Fabrege has not ventured in the
production of briefs, so it cannot be allowed to feight that Co has invaded Fabrege’s
exclusive domain. Justice JBL Reyes says in the Sta. Ana case that the law does not
require that the goods manufactured by the second user be related to the goods
produced by the senior user. But the law also says that there is infringement when the
reproduction is that which causes confusion. Since the products are different, there can
be no confusion.

Q. Would the case have been decided the same way today?
A. No, because of Sec. 138.

Developer’s Group v. CA

Developer’s (RP) filed an infringement case against Shangri-La Hotel claiming that it was
granted the ‘Shangri-la” mark for restaurant services in 1983. It claims that the hotel was
using the mark causing it prejudice. Hotel claims that it is the legal and beneficial owner
of the mark which was first adopted in 1962, used in their hotel business in China, HK,
Malaysia, Singapore, etc. Hotel also filed a petition against Developers for the
cancellation of its registration. RTC granted Developers an injunction and Hotel seeks to
lift the injunction.

Held: The conflicting claims of the parties show that the right claims by Developers is far
from clear. The prima facie validity of its registration has been put into serious question
by the cases filed by Shangri-La 3 years ahead of its complaint. While it is not required
that Developer’s right be conclusively established in this case, it is nevertheless
necessary to show that it exists and is not vitiated by any substantial challenge or
contradiction. Developers has failed to comply with this requirement.

Shangri-La Hotel v. CA

Shangri-La filed a petition for cancellation of Developer’s “Shangri-La” mark saying that
this was illegally and fraudulently obtained. Developer’s filed a complaint for
infringement against the Hotel. The Hotel seeks to suspend the infringement case
because of the pendency of the cancellation proceedings.

Held: The earlier institution of the Hotel of the cancellation proceeding cannot effectively
bar the subsequent filing of the infringement case by Developers. The certificate of
registration remains valid and subsisting for as long as it has not been canceled by the
court. Developer’s certificate continues as prima facie evidence of the validity of the
registration. Such certificate still subsists and Developer’s may thus file a corresponding
infringement case and recover damages. Further, the issue in the cancellation case is
quite different from that raised in the trial court.

Q. In the Developer’s case, why wasn’t it considered that the certificate gives rise to
prima facie presumption, such that Developer’s still had the burden of proof?
A. Court probably focused on the preliminary injunction issue rather than to intellectual
property law issues.

Mirpuri v. CA (not discussed in class)

Escobar (RP) filed application for the use of the TM “Barbizon” for brassiers. Barbizon
(NY) filed an opposition claiming that it is confusingly similar to its own mark.
Opposition was dismissed and the application was granted. Later, Escobar failed to file
the affidavit of use, so its registration was cancelled. Escobar reapplied for registration
but assigned this to Mirpuri. This was again opposed by Barbizon with the allegation
that the mark was used in US and also it has protection under the Paris Convention.
Mirpuri claims the defense of res judicata.

Held: The two caes do not have identical causes of action. In the present case, Barbizon
introduced a fact that did not exist at the time the first case was filed and terminated.
The cancellation from non-use could not have occurred in the first case, and this gave
Barbizon another cause to oppose the second application. Res judicata extends only to
facts and conditions as they existed at the time the judgment was rendered. When new
facts intervene furnishing new basis, there is no longer res judicata.

Sec. 139. Publication of Registered Marks; Inspection of Register. -

139.1. The Office shall publish, in the form and within the period fixed by the
Regulations, the mark registered, in the order of their registration, reproducing all the
particulars referred to in Subsection 137.2.

139.2. Marks registered at the Office may be inspected free of charge and any person
may obtain copies thereof at his own expense. This provision shall also be applicable to
transactions recorded in respect of any registered mark. (n)

Sec. 140. Cancellation upon Application by Registrant; Amendment or Disclaimer of

Registration. - Upon application of the registrant, the Office may permit any registration
to be surrendered for cancellation, and upon cancellation the appropriate entry shall be
made in the records of the Office. Upon application of the registrant and payment of the
prescribed fee, the Office for good cause may permit any registration to be amended or
to be disclaimed in part: Provided, That the amendment or disclaimer does not alter
materially the character of the mark. Appropriate entry shall be made in the records of
the Office upon the certificate of registration or, if said certificates is lost or destroyed,
upon a certified copy thereof.

Sec. 141. Sealed and Certified Copies as Evidence. - Copies of any records, books,
papers, or drawings belonging to the Office relating to marks, and copies of
registrations, when authenticated by the seal of the Office and certified by the Director
of the Administrative, Financial and Human Resource Development Service Bureau or in
his name by an employee of the Office duly authorized by said Director, shall be
evidence in all cases wherein the originals would be evidence; and any person who
applies and pays the prescribed fee shall secure such copies. (n)

Sec. 142. Correction of Mistakes Made by the Office. - Whenever a material mistake in a
registration incurred through the fault of the Office is clearly disclosed by the records of
the Office, a certificate stating the fact and nature of such mistake shall be issued
without charge, recorded and a printed copy thereof shall be attached to each printed
copy of the registration. Such corrected registration shall thereafter have the same
effect as the original certificate; or in the discretion of the Director of the Administrative,
Financial and Human Resource Development Service Bureau a new certificate of
registration may be issued without charge. All certificates of correction heretofore
issued in accordance with the Regulations and the registration to which they are
attached shall have the same force and effect as if such certificates and their issuance
had been authorized by this Act. (n)

Sec. 143. Correction of Mistakes Made by Applicant. - Whenever a mistake is made in a

registration and such mistake occurred in good faith through the fault of the applicant,
the Office may issue a certificate upon the payment of the prescribed fee: Provided, That
the correction does not involve any change in the registration that requires republication
of the mark. (n)

Sec. 144. Classification of Goods and Services. -

144.1. Each registration, and any publication of the Office which concerns an application
or registration effected by the Office shall indicate the goods or services by their names,
grouped according to the classes of the Nice Classification, and each group shall be
preceded by the number of the class of that Classification to which that group of goods
or services belongs, presented in the order of the classes of the said Classification.

144.2. Goods or services may not be considered as being similar or dissimilar to each
other on the ground that, in any registration or publication by the Office, they appear in
different classes of the Nice Classification.

Sec. 145. Duration. - A certificate of registration shall remain in force for ten (10) years:
Provided, That the registrant shall file a declaration of actual use and evidence to that
effect, or shall show valid reasons based on the existence of obstacles to such use, as
prescribed by the Regulations, within one (1) year from the fifth anniversary of the date
of the registration of the mark. Otherwise, the mark shall be removed from the Register
by the Office.

Sec. 146. Renewal. -

146.1. A certificate of registration may be renewed for periods of ten (10) years at its
expiration upon payment of the prescribed fee and upon filing of a request. The request
shall contain the following indications:
(a) An indication that renewal is sought;

(b) The name and address of the registrant or his successor-in-interest, hereafter
referred to as the "right holder";

(c) The registration number of the registration concerned;

(d) The filing date of the application which resulted in the registration concerned to be
renewed;

(e) Where the right holder has a representative, the name and address of that
representative;

(f) The names of the recorded goods or services for which the renewal is requested or
the names of the recorded goods or services for which the renewal is not requested,
grouped according to the classes of the Nice Classification to which that group of goods
or services belongs and presented in the order of the classes of the said Classification;
and

(g) A signature by the right holder or his representative.

146.2. Such request shall be in Filipino or English and 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 it may be made within six (6) months after such expiration on payment of
the additional fee herein prescribed.

146.3. If the Office refuses to renew the registration, it shall notify the registrant of his
refusal and the reasons therefor.

146.4. An applicant for renewal not domiciled in the Philippines shall be subject to and
comply with the requirements of this Act.

Sec. 147. Rights Conferred. -

147.1. 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.

147.2. The exclusive right of the owner of a well-known mark defined in Subsection
123.1(e) which is registered in the Philippines, shall extend to goods and services which
are not similar to those in respect of which the mark is registered: Provided, That use of
that 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. (n)

Sec. 148. Use of Indications by Third Parties for Purposes Other than those for which the
Mark is Used. - Registration of the mark shall not confer on the registered owner the
right to preclude third parties from using bona fide their names, addresses, pseudonyms,
a geographical name, or exact indications concerning the kind, quality, quantity,
destination, value, place of origin, or time of production or of supply, of their goods or
services: Provided, That such use is confined to the purposes of mere identification or
information and cannot mislead the public as to the source of the goods or services. (n)

Sec. 149. Assignment and Transfer of Application and Registration. -

149.1. 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. (n)

149.2. Such assignment or transfer shall, however, be null and void if it is liable to
mislead the public, particularly as regards the nature, source, manufacturing process,
characteristics, or suitability for their purpose, of the goods or services to which the
mark is applied.

149.3. The assignment of the application for registration of a mark, or of its registration,
shall be in writing and require the signatures of the contracting parties. Transfers by
mergers or other forms of succession may be made by any document supporting such
transfer.

149.4. Assignments and transfers of registration of marks shall be recorded at the

Office on payment of the prescribed fee; assignment and transfers of applications for
registration shall, on payment of the same fee, be provisionally recorded, and the mark,
when registered, shall be in the name of the assignee or transferee.

149.5. Assignments and transfers shall have no effect against third parties until they are
recorded at the Office.

Sec. 150. License Contracts. -

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.

150.2. A license contract shall be submitted to the Office which shall keep its contents
confidential but shall record it and publish a reference thereto. A license contract shall
have no effect against third parties until such recording is effected. The Regulations
shall fix the procedure for the recording of the license contract. (n)

Sec. 151. Cancellation. -

151.1. A petition to cancel a registration of a mark under this Act may be filed with the
Bureau of Legal Affairs by any person who believes that he is or will be damaged by the
registration of a mark under this Act as follows:
(a) Within five (5) years from the date of the registration of the mark under this Act.

(b) At any time, if the registered mark becomes the generic name for the goods or
services, or a portion thereof, for which it is registered, or has been abandoned, or its
registration was obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of this Act, or if the
registered mark is being used by, or with the permission of, the registrant so as to
misrepresent the source of the goods or services on or in connection with which the
mark is used. If the registered mark becomes the generic name for less than all of the
goods or services for which it is registered, a petition to cancel the registration for only
those goods or services may be filed. A registered mark shall not be deemed to be the
generic name of goods or services solely because such mark is also used as a name of
or to identify a unique product or service. The primary significance of the registered
mark to the relevant public rather than purchaser motivation shall be the test for
determining whether the registered mark has become the generic name of goods or
services on or in connection with which it has been used. (n)

(c) At any time, if the registered owner of the mark without legitimate reason fails to use
the mark within the Philippines, or to cause it to be used in the Philippines by virtue of a
license during an uninterrupted period of three (3) years or longer.

151.2. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the court or the administrative agency
vested with jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate any action to enforce the rights to a
registered mark shall likewise exercise jurisdiction to determine whether the registration
of said mark may be cancelled in accordance with this Act. The filing of a suit to enforce
the registered mark with the proper court or agency shall exclude any other court or
agency from assuming jurisdiction over a subsequently filed petition to cancel the same
mark. On the other hand, the earlier filing of petition to cancel the mark with the Bureau
of Legal Affairs shall not constitute a prejudicial question that must be resolved before
an action to enforce the rights to same registered mark may be decided.

Q. Is there a presumption of abandonment under the law?

A. Yes. If the registered owner of the mark without legitimate reason fails to use the
mark within the Philippines, or to cause it to be used in the Philippines by virtue of a
license during an uninterrupted period of three (3) years or longer, a petition may be filed
for the cancellation of the mark.

Q. What if your TM expires and before you register it, someone registers before you file?
A. It would depend on the gap. If it’s just a matter of days or months, prior registrant has
priority. It long gap, senior registrant has priority.

Pagasa Industrial v. CA

1961 - Kaisha registers YKK as trademark for slide fasteners and zippers.
1967- Pagasa files application for registration of YKK for zippers.
1977 - Kaisha files petition for cancellation of Pagasa’s registration claiming both are
confusingly similar.
Pagasa claims that failure or neglect to assert its trademark rights for more than five
years bars Kaisha from filing the petition.

Held: Law requires actual commercial use of the mark prior to registration. Here, Kaisha
was prior registrant but it did not present proof that it had considerable sales since its
first use. The invoices submitted date back to 1957 showing sale of samples. Samples
are not for sale and are of no commercial value. Only after more than 7 years too did
Kaisha file for cancellation. An unreasonable length of time had already passed before
the right was asserted. There is a presumption of neglect already amounting to
abandonment.

Bata Industries v. CA

New Olympian sought registration of Bata as trademark for casual rubber shoes,
claiming that it has used this mark since 1970. Bata (Canada) opposed this saying that it
owns and has not abandoned the trademark Bata. It was shown that Bata shoes were
indeed sold in RP prior to WWII, until 1948.

Held: Any slight goodwill generated by Bata was completedly abandoned and lost in the
more than 35 years that have passed since it last used the trademark. Bata has no
Philippine goodwill that would be damaged by the registration of the mark in New
Olympian’s favor.

Sec. 152. Non-use of a Mark When Excused. -

152.1. Non-use of a mark may be excused if caused by circumstances arising
independently of the will of the trademark owner. Lack of funds shall not excuse non-use
of a mark.

152.2. The use of the mark in a form different from the form in which it is registered,
which does not alter its distinctive character, shall not be ground for cancellation or
removal of the mark and shall not diminish the protection granted to the mark.

152.3. The use of a mark in connection with one or more of the goods or services
belonging to the class in respect of which the mark is registered shall prevent its
cancellation or removal in respect of all other goods or services of the same class.

152.4. The use of a mark by a company related with the registrant or applicant shall
inure to the latter’s benefit, and such use shall not affect the validity of such mark or of
its registration: Provided, That such mark is not used in such manner as to deceive the
public. If use of a mark by a person is controlled by the registrant or applicant with
respect to the nature and quality of the goods or services, such use shall inure to the
benefit of the registrant or applicant. (n)
Sec. 153. Requirements of Petition; Notice and Hearing. - Insofar as applicable, the
petition for cancellation shall be in the same form as that provided in Section 134
hereof, and notice and hearing shall be as provided in Section 135 hereof.

Sec. 154. Cancellation of Registration. - If the Bureau of Legal Affairs finds that a case
for cancellation has been made out, it shall order the cancellation of the registration.
When the order or judgment becomes final, any right conferred by such registration
upon the registrant or any person in interest of record shall terminate. Notice of
cancellation shall be published in the IPO Gazette.

Sec. 155. Remedies; Infringement. - Any person who shall, without the consent of the
owner of the registered mark:
155.1. Use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a
registered mark or the same container or a dominant feature thereof in connection with
the sale, offering for sale, distribution, advertising of any goods or services including
other preparatory steps necessary to carry out the sale of any goods or services on or in
connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
deceive; or

155.2. Reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark or a dominant

feature thereof and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to
labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be
used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or
advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to
cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable in a civil action for
infringement by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter set forth: Provided, That the
infringement takes place at the moment any of the acts stated in Subsection 155.1 or
this subsection are committed regardless of whether there is actual sale of goods or
services using the infringing material.
Q. Is registration needed for infringement cases?
A. Yes. Sec. 155 says, “any person who shall, without the consent of the owner of the
REGISTERED MARK….”

Similar Goods – Dominancy/wholistic test

Nestle v. CA

Flavor Master v. Master Roast. Applied the dominancy test.

Asia Brewery v. CA & San Miguel Corporation

Grino-Aquino, J.

SMC filed a complaint against Asia Brewery Inc. (ABI) for infringement and unfair
competition for ABI’s Beer Pale Pilasen or Beer na Beer. SMC cites the following issues
(ratio follows issue)
1. SMC Pale Pilsen has rectagular hops and malt design which is similar with ABI’s
trademark – Test of Dominancy was used where similarity in size form and color while
relevant is not conclusive. Here, “Beer” does not appear in SMC’s TM, “San Miguel” does
not appear in ABI’s TM. No similarity in sound, spelling or appearance. No evidence
presented by SMC proving that anyone who purchases ABI can be deceived that it is
SMC’s.
2. Bottle’s are bottled in amber-colored steinie bottles of 320 ml capacity – steinie
bottles are similar but not identical. Also, the bottle is a standard type originally
developed in US and not an SMC design. Also, protection is confined to nonfunctional
features. Amber color is for preventing transmission of light and provides maximum
protection to beer. Also, 320 ml is the standard prescribed under a circular of the DTI.
Court also held that there is a substantial price difference.

Negre: The case seems to be decided in a wrong manner, by an old lady justice. San
Miguel Light comes out in transparent bottles, and there are green and yellow bottles in
the market. Also, after consuming 3 beers, you can’t really tell the difference in taste.

Del Monte v. CA & Sunshine Sauce

Del Monte (US) granted PhilPack (RP) right to manufacture and sell products under Del
Monte TM and it registered the TM. Sunshine manufactures sauce too, contained in
various kinds of bottles including the Del Monte bottle which it bought from junk shops.
Philpack files complaint for TM infringement and for unfair competition. CA held that a
side-by-side comparison shows no colorable imitation of TM since design is different.

Held: Side-by-side comparison is not the final test of similarity. Average shopper is
usually in a hurry and does not inspect every product on the shelf as if he were browsing
in a library. So the casual purchaser who is unsuspicious must be the standard. The
factors to consider are (1) the training and education of the usual purchaser, (2) the cost
of the article and the (3) conditions under which it is usually purchased. Thus, there is
TM infringement of the mark but none as to the bottle because although bad faith of
Sunshine is evident since Del Monte’s bottle states, “Del Monte Corp, Not to be Refilled,”
there is still no infringement since the bottle’s design was registered only in the
Supplemental Register and this does not vest the registrant with the exclusive right to
use the label nor does it give rise to the presumption of validity of the registration.

Converse Rubber v. Universal Rubber

Universal Rubber filed an application for the registration of “Universal Converse” for use
on rubber shoes and rubber slippers. Converse files an opposition saying that the TM is
confusingly similar to the word “Converse”. Converse presents lone witness, a private
merchant with stores selling Converse that the sales in her store averaged 12-20 pairs a
month purchased mostly by basketball palyers of local private educational institutions.
She presents sales invoices as proof.

Held: “Converse” is the dominant word which identifies petitioner. Universal admits that
Converse has known that the word Converse belongs to and is being used by petitioner.
Boundless choice of words are available and when there is no reasonable explanation
for the defendant’s choice of such a mark, the inference is inevitable that it wsa chosen
to deceive. Sales invoices are best proof of actual sales of Converse products in RP.
Sale of 12-20 pairs is not considered insignificant because the shoes are of high
expensive quality which not too many people can afford. Such actual use of goods in the
local market establishes trademark use which serves as the basis for action aimed at
trademark pre-emption.

Q. What is the best proof of use of the product in the country?

A. Sales invoices.

Q. What if the sales were done over the internet, is it sufficient to establish actual use?
A. Yes. There is no need for actual presence in RP.

Q. What if the foreign based company does advertising in cable, is it sufficient to prove
use of the mark in RP?A. No definite answer, but Converse seems to require actual
sales, since it says that sales invoices are the best proof of use in a country.

Emerald Garments v. CA

HD Lee (Lee Jeans) filed for the cancellation of the TM of Emerald Garments called
“Stylistic Mr. Lee” (skirts, jeans, blouses, socks, briefs, jackets, jogging suits). HD Lee
claims that the products are so closely related that it will cause confusion, mistake and
deception. CA used the test of dominancy saying that if the competing trademark
contains the essential or dominant features of another, such that it will cause confusion
and deception, then there would be infringement. Thus, since the labels are similar, the
CA ruled there was infringement.

Held: The SC used the holistic test which says that the entirety of the marks in question
must be considered in determining confusing similarity. It ruled that there is no
infringement. Emerald’s TM is “Stylistic Mr. Lee” and is not confusingly similar to “Lee.”
Since the product is jeans which are not inexpensive, the casual buyer is more cautious
and discriminating. Confusion and deception is less likely. The average consumer also
buys his jeans by brand. Also, “Lee” is primarily a surname, so HD Lee can’t acquire
exclusive ownership of the term. In addition, HD Lee failed to show prior actual
commercial use of its “Lee” TM in RP before it filed its application.

Q. Would the result have been different had a different test been used?
A. It seems that way, since the CA used dominancy test and the result was different
from the SC decision which used the holistic test.

Q. Why was this case decided differently from the Converse?

A. In Converse, there was proof of actual prior commercial use.

Lim Hoa v. Director

Lim Hoa filed for application of registration of TM consisting of two midget roosters in
combat with the word Bantam, for food seasoning. Agricom Dev’t opposed the
application saying that it is confusingly similar with its own TM which is a pictorial
representation of a hen with the words “Hen Brand” and “Marca Manok” also used in
food seasoning.

Held: There is such similarity between them as to cause confusion. In the test of
dominancy, similarity in size, form, color, while relevant, is not conclusive. If the
competing trademark contains the main or essential dominant features of another,
infringement takes place. Duplication is not necessary, not is it necessary that the
infringing label should suggest an effort to imitate. Also, the product is purchased by
cooks and household help, sometimes illiterate who are guided by pictorial
representations and the sound of the word. There is also greater danger here since the
products are cheap.

Q. What was the factor considered by the court?

A. Same animals and similar products.

Q. Would there be infringement in crocodile and alligator?

A. Yes.

Q. Tiger and lion?

A. Yes.

Q. Would the ruling be the same if the case involved leather goods?
A. It may have been decided differently since the case would involve expensive products
where the buyers are wary and not illiterate.

Philips Export v. CA & SEC

Philips Export (Netherlands) owns TM for “Philips,” for electrical products. Standard
Philips (RP) was issued a certificate of registration by SEC for the business of chain
rollers, belts, bearing. PE filed a complaint asking for the cancellation of SP’s name and
filed for a petition for injunction. SEC ruled against PE, saying that Sec. 18 of the Corp.
Code is applicable only when the corporate names are identical.

Held: The right to use a corporate name is a property right, a right in rem which it may
assert. Corp Code gives two requirements: (1) That complaint acquired a prior right over
such name and (2) that the proposed name is either identical, deceptively or confusingly
similar, or patently deceptive. PE’s prior adoption of the term “Philips” is not in doubt,
and the test as to whether it would be confusing is the ordinary person. “Philips” is
indeed the dominant word. Note that although no proof was presented of actual
confusion, it is sufficient that confusion is probably or likely to occur.

Q. Where did the case emanate?

A. From SEC.

Q. Does SEC have jurisdiction over the case?

A. Yes because it involves corporate names.

Q. Who has jurisdiction over cases involving corporate names under PD 902-A, the SEC
or the RTC?
A. This is still a grey area.

Q. Which test should be applied in this case?

A. The court seemed to apply the dominancy test. Note that when goods are similar and
the marks are identical, Sec. 147.1 gives a presumption of the likelihood of confusion.

Spectrum of the Likelihood of Confusion

Same goods Different goods

Identical marks Different marks

Negre: There should be no difference between the dominancy and holistic test. With
either test, you should arrive at the same conclusion, based on this spectrum.

Dissimilar Goods
Polaroid v. Polarad

Polaroid (Delaware) is registrant of the name Polaroid for the use of sheet polarizing
material, lamps, optical lans. It files an action for injunction against Polarad claiming
that its use infringed on its trademark and is unfair competition. Polarad is engaged in
manufacture of microwave generating devices and TV studio equipment. Polarad
admits that he had some knowledge of plaintiff’s use of the name Polaroid, but not as to
electronics. Polarad used the name as early as 1945, but there was no protest. It
registered in 1953, and plaintiff delayed suit until 1956. Polaroid claims that laches does
not apply in tm cases since injunction, rather than damages, are sought.

Held: Plaintiff is guilty of laches. Doctrine of laches has no such reach as claimed when
the goods are different. TM owner’s interest is in preventing such use because he may
wish to preempt the market for later exploitation. Here, owner’s rights in such appendant
markets are easily lost. They must be asserted early, lest they be made the means of
reaping a harvest which others have sown.

Q. What are the factors cited by the court in deciding infringement cases when the
products are different?
A. 1. Strength of the mark
2. Degree of similarity between the two marks
3. Proximity of the products
4. Likelihood that the prior owner will bridge the gap
5. Actual confusion
6. Defendant’s good faith in adopting its own mark
7. Quality of the defendant’s product
8. Sophistication of the buyers

QUALITY INNS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. McDONALD’S CORPORATION

On September 21, 1987 , Quality Inns International, Inc. announced a new chain of
economy hotels to be marketed under the name “McSleep Inn.” McDonald’s Corporation
responded immediately claiming that the name “McSleep” infringed on the McDonald’s
family of marks that are characterized by the prefix “Mc” combined with a generic word.
Robert C. Hazard, Jr., CEO of Quality International in 1980, claimed he was driving down
the highway when it hit him, “to name the new economy chain McSleep,” and had no
intent of using McDonald’s goodwill to its advantage. McDonald’s contends that it is the
owner of a family of marks each of which is formulated by combining the prefix “Mc”
with a generic word to form a fanciful trademark or service mark. It contends that
“McSleep Inn” that had been adopted by Quality International is likely to cause confusion
and that Quality International selected the word Mc Sleep deliberately to trade on the
goodwill and reputation of McDonald’s.
Conclusion: The Court finds and concludes that (1) McDonald’s is entitled to enforce its
family of marks that are characterized by the combination of the prefix “Mc” with a
generic word; (2) the name McSleep Inn is likely to cause an appreciable number of the
public to be confused by believing McSleep Inn is sponsored, associated, affiliated,
connected, or endorsed by McDonald’s; and (3) the adoption and use by Quality
International of the name McSleep Inn was a deliberate attempt to benefit by the good
will and reputation of McDonald’s. The Court found trademark infringement, unfair
competition, and dilution under the Illinois statute.

Q. In this case, what were the 7 factors applied?

Similar with the earlier ones given. These are considered in determining the likelihood of
confusion:
(1) the strength of distinctiveness of the mark,
(2) the similarity of the two marks,
(3) the similarity of the goods or services with the marks identify,
(4) the similarity of the facilities used by the parties in conducting their businesses,
(5) the similarity of advertising used by the parties,
(6) the defendant’s intent,
(7) and actual confusion.
If we apply the facts of the case to this statute, we will see that some of these
conditions have been met.

Q. Can bad faith in trademark infringement cases be presumed?

A. No, it should be proven.

Q. Are surveys admissible? Since in the Quality Inn case, a survey was presented by
McDonald’s which showed that people associated McDonald’s with Quality Inn’s
McSleep.
A. Yes, if accompanied with testimony of the person conducting the survey, or if it falls
under the commercial list exception.

Sec. 156. Actions, and Damages and Injunction for Infringement. -

156.1. The owner of a registered mark may recover damages from any person who
infringes his rights, and the measure of the damages suffered shall be either the
reasonable profit which the complaining party would have made, had the defendant not
infringed his rights, or the profit which the defendant actually made out of the
infringement, or in the event such measure of damages cannot be readily ascertained
with reasonable certainty, then the court may award as damages a reasonable
percentage based upon the amount of gross sales of the defendant or the value of the
services in connection with which the mark or trade name was used in the infringement
of the rights of the complaining party.

156.2. On application of the complainant, the court may impound during the pendency of
the action, sales invoices and other documents evidencing sales. (n)

156.3. In cases where actual intent to mislead the public or to defraud the complainant
is shown, in the discretion of the court, the damages may be doubled.

156.4. The complainant, upon proper showing, may also be granted injunction.
Q. What are the types of remedies granted for infringement?
A. 1) Damages, 2) impounding of sales invoice, 3) injunction.

Q. What kind of damages are compensable?

A. Only loss of profit. But when there is intent to mislead, double the profit.

NOTE: It is thus evident that even when there is no intent to mislead, there can be
infringement.

Q. Can the court award damages when there is no notice to infringer? Like when he is
not aware that he is infringing?
A. It appears that the court can do this, since intent to mislead is not essential. (?)

Sec. 157. Power of Court to Order Infringing Material Destroyed. -

157.1. In any action arising under this Act, in which a violation of any right of the owner
of the registered mark is established, the court may order that goods found to be
infringing be, without compensation of any sort, disposed of outside the channels of
commerce in such a manner as to avoid any harm caused to the right holder, or
destroyed; and all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles and
advertisements in the possession of the defendant, bearing the registered mark or trade
name or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation thereof, all plates,
molds, matrices and other means of making the same, shall be delivered up and
destroyed.

157.2. In regard to counterfeit goods, the simple removal of the trademark affixed shall
not be sufficient other than in exceptional cases which shall be determined by the
Regulations, to permit the release of the goods into the channels of commerce.

Sec. 158. Damages; Requirement of Notice. - In any suit for infringement, the owner of
the registered mark shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts
have been committed with knowledge that such imitation is likely to cause confusion, or
to cause mistake, or to deceive. Such knowledge is presumed if the registrant gives
notice that his mark is registered by displaying with the mark the words "Registered
Mark" or the letter R within a circle or if the defendant had otherwise actual notice of the
registration.

Sec. 159. Limitations to Actions for Infringement. - Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act, the remedies given to the owner of a right infringed under this Act shall be
limited as follows:

159.1 Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 155 hereof, a registered mark shall
have no effect against any person who, in good faith, before the filing date or the priority
date, was using the mark for the purposes of his business or enterprise: Provided, That
his 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.

159.2 Where an infringer who is engaged solely in the business of printing the mark or
other infringing materials for others is an innocent infringer, the owner of the right
infringed shall be entitled as against such infringer only to an injunction against future
printing.

159.3. Where the infringement complained of is contained in or is part of paid

advertisement in a newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical or in an electronic
communication, the remedies of the owner of the right infringed as against the publisher
or distributor of such newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical or electronic
communication shall be limited to an injunction against the presentation of such
advertising matter in future issues of such newspapers, magazines, or other similar
periodicals or in future transmissions of such electronic communications. The
limitations of this subparagraph shall apply only to innocent infringers: Provided, That
such injunctive relief shall not be available to the owner of the right infringed with
respect to an issue of a newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical or an electronic
communication containing infringing matter where restraining the dissemination of such
infringing matter in any particular issue of such periodical or in an electronic
communication would delay the delivery of such issue or transmission of such
electronic communication is customarily conducted in accordance with the sound
business practice, and not due to any method or device adopted to evade this section or
to prevent or delay the issuance of an injunction or restraining order with respect to such
infringing matter. (n)

Sec. 160. Right of Foreign Corporation to Sue in Trademark or Service Mark

Enforcement Action. - Any foreign national or juridical person who meets the
requirements of Section 3 of this Act and does not engage in business in the Philippines
may bring a civil or administrative action hereunder for opposition, cancellation,
infringement, unfair competition, or false designation of origin and false description,
whether or not it is licensed to do business in the Philippines under existing laws.
Q. Converse and Canon required prior actual use in RP of the mark in order for the
foreign oppositor’s case to prosper. Is actual use in RP still required?
A. It appears that this is no longer a requirement, since the foreign national who sues
under this section is required not to engage in business in the Philippines.

Yu v. CA

Philip Yu is the exclusive distributor of House of Mayfair wallcovering products. Unisia

imported the same goods via FNF Trading and sold the products in the domestic
market. Yu filed for injunction. Unisia claims ignorance of the exclusive contract.

Held: 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 and
which may not be diminished by the expedient act of utilizing a person to obtain goods
from the supplier to defeat the very purpose for which the exclusive distributorship was
conceptualized at the expense of the exclusive distributor. Also, the House of Mayfair in
England was duped into believing that the goods ordered through FNF Trading was to be
shipped to Nigeria only but the goods were actually sold in the Philippines.

Q. What does this case have to do with IP rights? (actual question asked by Negre)
A. IP rights, like exclusive distributorship, are proprietary rights which a party may
protect.

Q. Co. A based in Singapore has exclusive distribution with Co. B in RP for product “D.”
Can Co. B prevent Co. C from bringing the product to the Philippines?
A. Yes.

Q. What if C is not aware of the exclusive distributorship?

A. From the case, it seems that intent is required. (but answer changes later)

Q. What if the product is a life-saving drug imported by the government?

A. The government may probably import it by exerting its police power.

Q. Where do you draw the line?

A. Maybe for life-saving drugs, or important technologies like fast growing rice palay. If
not, government will be depriving persons of proprietary rights (property) without due
process.

Q. What does TRIPS and WTO provide on parallel importation?

A. Once the product is distributed, he can no longer control resale because the right is
limited to the first distribution.

Q. So should B have been able to prevent importation, since after the first sale, there is
no more right to control sale? Won’t there be a monopoly if this is the case?
A. Yes, it does seem that way, because only the government, in the exercise of police
power, can deprive persons of property rights without due process.

Sec. 161. Authority to Determine Right to Registration. - In any action involving a

registered mark, the court may determine the right to registration, order the cancellation
of a registration, in whole or in part, and otherwise rectify the register with respect to the
registration of any party to the action in the exercise of this. Judgment and orders shall
be certified by the court to the Director, who shall make appropriate entry upon the
records of the Bureau, and shall be controlled thereby.

Sec. 162. Action for False or Fraudulent Declaration. - Any person who shall procure
registration in the Office of a mark by a false or fraudulent declaration or representation,
whether oral or in writing, or by any false means, shall be liable in a civil action by any
person injured thereby for any damages sustained in consequence thereof.

Sec. 163. Jurisdiction of Court. - All actions under Sections 150, 155, 164, and 166 to
169 shall be brought before the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under
existing laws.

Sec. 164. Notice of Filing Suit Given to the Director. - It shall be the duty of the clerks of
such courts within one (1) month after the filing of any action, suit, or proceeding
involving a mark registered under the provisions of this Act, to notify the Director in
writing setting forth: the names and addresses of the litigants and designating the
number of the registration or registrations and within one (1) month after the judgment
is entered or an appeal is taken, the clerk of court shall give notice thereof to the Office,
and the latter shall endorse the same upon the filewrapper of the said registration or
registrations and incorporate the same as a part of the contents of said filewrapper. (n)

Sec. 165. Trade Names or Business Names. -

165.1. A name or designation may not be used as a trade name if by its nature or the
use to which such name or designation may be put, it is contrary to public order or
morals and if, in particular, it is liable to deceive trade circles or the public as to the
nature of the enterprise identified by that name.

165.2. (a) Notwithstanding any laws or regulations providing for any obligation to
register trade names, such names shall be protected, even prior to or without
registration, against any unlawful act committed by third parties.
(b) In particular, any subsequent use of the trade name by a third party, whether as a
trade name or a mark or collective mark, or any such use of a similar trade name or
mark, likely to mislead the public, shall be deemed unlawful.

165.3. The remedies provided for in Sections 153 to 156 and Sections 166 and 167 shall
apply mutatis mutandis.

165.4. Any change in the ownership of a trade name shall be made with the transfer of
the enterprise or part thereof identified by that name. The provisions of Subsections
149.2 to 149.4 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Sec. 166. Goods Bearing Infringing Marks or Trade Names. - No article of imported
merchandise which shall copy or simulate the name of any domestic product, or
manufacturer, or dealer, or which shall copy or simulate a mark registered in accordance
with the provisions of this Act, or shall bear a mark or trade name calculated to induce
the public to believe that the article is manufactured in the Philippines, or that it is
manufactured in any foreign country or locality other than the country or locality where it
is in fact manufactured, shall be admitted to entry at any customhouse of the
Philippines. In order to aid the officers of the customs service in enforcing this
prohibition, any person who is entitled to the benefits of this Act, may require that his
name and residence, and the name of the locality in which his goods are manufactured,
a copy of the certificate of registration of his mark or trade name, to be recorded in
books which shall be kept for this purpose in the Bureau of Customs, under such
regulations as the Collector of Customs with the approval of the Secretary of Finance
shall prescribe, and may furnish to the said Bureau facsimiles of his name, the name of
the locality in which his goods are manufactured, or his registered mark or trade name,
and thereupon the Collector of Customs shall cause one (1) or more copies of the same
to be transmitted to each collector or to other proper officer of the Bureau of Customs.
(Sec. 35, R. A. No. 166)
Q. Can the customs seize the goods?
A. It appears under this section that all they can do is to prevent entry. But under Art. 9
of the Paris Convention, “All goods unlawfully bearing a trademark or trade name shall
be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where such mark or trade
name is entitled to legal protection.” Note that under the Paris convention, authorities
shall not be bound to effect seizure. If the legislation of a country does not permit
seizure on importation, it shall be replaced by prohibition of importation or by seizure on
inside the country.

Sec. 167. Collective Marks. -

167.1. Subject to Subsections 167.2 and 167.3, Sections 122 to 164 and 166 shall apply
to collective marks, except that references therein to "mark" shall be read as "collective
mark."

167.2 (a) An application for registration of a collective mark shall designate the mark as
a collective mark and shall be accompanied by a copy of the agreement, if any,
governing the use of the collective mark.
(b) The registered owner of a collective mark shall notify the Director of any changes
made in respect of the agreement referred to in paragraph (a).

167.3. In addition to the grounds provided in Section 149, the Court shall cancel the
registration of a collective mark if the person requesting the cancellation proves that
only the registered owner uses the mark, or that he uses or permits its use in
contravention of the agreements referred to in Subsection 166.2 or that he uses or
permits its use in a manner liable to deceive trade circles or the public as to the origin or
any other common characteristics of the goods or services concerned.

167.4. The registration of a collective mark, or an application therefor shall not be the
subject of a license contract.

Sec. 168. Unfair Competition, Rights, Regulation and Remedies. -

168.1. A person who has identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufactures
or deals in, his business or services from those of others, whether or not a registered
mark is employed, has a property right in the goodwill of the said goods, business or
services so identified, which will be protected in the same manner as other property
rights.

168.2. Any person who shall employ deception or any other means contrary to good
faith by which he shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or
his business, or services for those of the one having established such goodwill, or who
shall commit any acts calculated to produce said result, shall be guilty of unfair
competition, and shall be subject to an action therefor.

168.3. In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of protection against
unfair competition, the following shall be deemed guilty of unfair competition:

(a) Any person, who is selling his goods and gives them the general appearance of
goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the
wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon,
or in any other feature of their appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers
to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer, other than the
actual manufacturer or dealer, or who otherwise clothes the goods with such
appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate trade, or
any subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling
such goods with a like purpose;

(b) Any person who by any artifice, or device, or who employs any other means
calculated to induce the false belief that such person is offering the services of another
who has identified such services in the mind of the public; or

(c) Any person who shall make any false statement in the course of trade or who shall
commit any other act contrary to good faith of a nature calculated to discredit the
goods, business or services of another.

168.4. The remedies provided by Sections 156, 157 and 161 shall apply mutatis
mutandis.
Q. What is unfair competition?
A. It is the passing off of one’s goods as those of another.

Compana General de Tabacos v. Alhambra Cigar

Compania files case against Alhambra who sold cigarettes bearing the words “Alhambra
Isabelas,” for TM infringement and unfair competition, arising from the use of the word
“Isabelas.”

Held: In infringement case, the action does not proceed on the theory that the public will
be defrauded, although that may be the result. It is on the claim that the plaintiff’s right
on the mark ahs been invaded. There is no need to proof anything more than right to the
exclusive use. No proof of fraud or intent to defraud is necessary. In unfair competition,
the action is exclusively based on fraud. A violation of TM cannot be carried on with an
action of unfair competition based on similarity to the plaintiff’s TM. The law does not
permit these two actions to be maintained on the same facts.

(As to infringement case)

There can be no registration of a TM which represents the geographical place of
production or the origin of the product or is merely the description. Also, there is no
secondary meaning of the word “Isabela” acquired by long association with plaintiff’s
cigarettes. There are also other cigarettes using “Isabela.”

Q. Can a person file for both trademark infringement and unfair competition?
A. Yes, they are not mutually exclusive.

Q. Can you file for both in the same action?

A. Yes. But in Alhambra, if the action is based on the mark, it is only an action for
infringement.
Q. Compare infringement and unfair competition.
A. See chart.

Trademark Infringement
Unfair Competition
What is?
Unauthorized use of a trademark
Passing off of one’s product for another based on general appearance
Bad faith/intent necessary?
No.
Intent to deceive/Fraudulent intent is essential
Registration of the trademark required?
Prior registration is required
Registration is not necessary

Sec. 169. False Designations of Origin; False Description or Representation. -

169.1. Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container
for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any
combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description
of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which:

(a) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation,

connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin,
sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by
another person; or

(b) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics,

qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or
commercial activities, shall be liable to a civil action for damages and injunction
provided in Sections 156 and 157 of this Act by any person who believes that he or she
is or likely to be damaged by such act.

169.2. Any goods marked or labeled in contravention of the provisions of this Section
shall not be imported into the Philippines or admitted entry at any customhouse of the
Philippines. The owner, importer, or consignee of goods refused entry at any
customhouse under this section may have any recourse under the customs revenue
laws or may have the remedy given by this Act in cases involving goods refused entry or
seized. (Sec. 30, R. A. No. 166a)

Sec. 170. Penalties. - Independent of the civil and administrative sanctions imposed by
law, a criminal penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years to five (5) years and a fine
ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) to Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000), shall be imposed on any person who is found guilty of committing any of the
acts mentioned in Section 155, Section 168 and Subsection 169.1.
Q. What actions are available to TM holders?
A. Civil, criminal and administrative cases.

Q. What is the venue?

A. For civil cases, either MTC (below P300K, below P400K for Manila) or RTC depending
on the amount.
For criminal cases, it is unclear if jurisdiction should depend on the imprisonment or
fine.
For administrative cases, the DTI for tradenames, the IPO for trademarks.

PRIMER ON INTERNET RELATED

TRADE MARK ISSUES
Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on
the Protection of Marks, and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs, on the Internet

Q. What are some of the important provisions discussed in Joint Recommendation?

A. Only Article 2 and 3 were discussed in class. They are:
Article 2Use of a Sign on the Internet in a Member State
Use of a sign on the Internet shall constitute use in a Member State for the purposes of
these provisions, only if the use has a commercial effect in that Member State as
described in Article 3.

Article 3Factors for Determining Commercial Effect in a Member State

(1) [Factors] In determining whether use of a sign on the Internet has a commercial
effect in a Member State, the competent authority shall take into account all relevant
circumstances. Circumstances that may be relevant include, but are not limited to:

(a) circumstances indicating that the user of the sign is doing, or has undertaken
significant plans to do, business in the Member State in relation to goods or services
which are identical or similar to those for which the sign is used on the Internet.

(b) the level and character of commercial activity of the user in relation to the Member
State, including:

(i) whether the user is actually serving customers located in the Member State or has
entered into other commercially motivated relationships with persons located in the
Member State;

(ii) whether the user has stated, in conjunction with the use of the sign on the Internet,
that he does not intend to deliver the goods or services offered to customers located in
the Member State and whether he adheres to his stated intent;

(iii) whether the user offers post-sales activities in the Member State, such as warranty
or service;

(iv) whether the user undertakes further commercial activities in the Member State
which are related to the use of the sign on the Internet but which are not carried out over
the Internet.

(c) the connection of an offer of goods or services on the Internet with the Member
State, including:

(i) whether the goods or services offered can be lawfully delivered in the Member State;

(ii) whether the prices are indicated in the official currency of the Member State.

(d) the connection of the manner of use of the sign on the Internet with the Member
State, including:

(i) whether the sign is used in conjunction with means of interactive contact which are
accessible to Internet users in the Member State;

(ii) whether the user has indicated, in conjunction with the use of the sign, an address,
telephone number or other means of contact in the Member State;

(iii) whether the sign is used in connection with a domain name which is registered
under the ISO Standard country code 3166 Top Level Domain referring to the Member
State;

(iv) whether the text used in conjunction with the use of the sign is in a language
predominantly used in the Member State;

(v) whether the sign is used in conjunction with an Internet location which has actually
been visited by Internet users located in the Member State.

(e) the relation of the use of the sign on the Internet with a right in that sign in the
Member State, including:

(i) whether the use is supported by that right;

(ii) whether, where the right belongs to another, the use would take unfair advantage of,
or unjustifiably impair, the distinctive character or the reputation of the sign that is the
subject of that right.

(2) [Relevance of Factors] The above factors, which are guidelines to assist the
competent authority to determine whether the use of a sign has produced a commercial
effect in a Member State, are not pre‑conditions for reaching that determination. Rather,
the determination in each case will depend upon the particular circumstances of that
case. In some cases all of the factors may be relevant. In other cases some of the
factors may be relevant. In still other cases none of the factors may be relevant, and the
decision may be based on additional factors that are not listed in paragraph (1), above.
Such additional factors may be relevant, alone, or in combination with one or more of the
factors listed in paragraph (1), above.

Q. Is actual sale needed to constitute use?

A. No. The Joint Recommendation states that the following are sufficient: (a)
circumstances indicating that the user of the sign is doing, or (b) has undertaken
significant plans to do, business in the Member State in relation to goods or services
which are identical or similar to those for which the sign is used on the Internet.

Q. Japanese company is selling products in the Internet using Japanese language. Is

this commercial use?
A. No.

Q. If a company has no means of delivering the products to a particular country, is this

an important factor to consider?
A. Yes.

Q. Post sales services, where should this be done?

A. The place where the item is sold.

Q. Does the place where the sale is perfected determine where the commercial use of
the trademark is undertaken? (Just a note:
General Rule: Art. 1523, Civil code: Where in pursuance of a contract of sale, the seller is
authorized to send the goods to the buyer, delivery of the goods to a carrier is deemed to
be delivery of the goods to the buyer.
Exception: When otherwise specified, e.g., the Incoterms, i.e., FOB Manila (title transfers
in Manila)
A. No. There is commercial use when the user of the mark is actually serving customers
located
in the Member State or has entered into other commercially motivated relationships with
persons located in the Member State.

Domain Names

Q. What are the parts of a domain name?

A. Everything that precedes the dot is second level domain à yahoo[.]com ß Everything
that comes after the dot is first level domain.

Q. What are the dual functions of a domain name?

A. The functions are:
1. Represents the address of a computer on the Internet so that every computer can
communicate with every other computer.
2. Serves the same function in electronic commerce as the trademark in more traditional
modes of business.

Q. How do you obtain a domain name?

A. Through an Internet Service Provider that submits the electronic application to 240
registries worldwide. Among these are NSI – Network Solutions Inc.

Q. What is the system of registry?

A. Domain names are assigned on a first come first serve basis. Thre is no requirement
of use of the domain name in connection with an Internet-related service. While this may
seem to aid cyberpiracy, this aids in defensive registry to prevent cyber-piracy.

Q. What is the manner by which disputes on domain names are resolved?

A. The owner of a trademark registration can challenge the domain name holder’s
registration of an “identical” second-level domain provided the “effective date” of the
complainant’s trademark registration predates the “creation date” of the domain name
registration.

Q. What is the procedure?

A. It is as follows:
1. NSI will send a letter to the domain name registrant giving him 30 days to supply his
own trademark registration.

2. If the domain name registrant’s TM registration predates the notice of dispute, he will
be able to keep his domain name. The trademark owner’s recourse would be to file a
lawsuit or to have a settlement or arbitration.

3. If the domain name registrant cannot produce its own TM registration:

a. registrant can transfer domain name to TM owner
b. registrant can register new TM which places the disputed name “on hold”
c. registrant canr efuse to transfer, dispute name is “on hold”
d. registrant can file for declaratory judgment

Q. What are the requirements to invoke the NSI dispute resolution?

A. TM owner must have TM registration, the dispute is for an identical second level
registry, on the federal principal register, application filing date predates the creation
date of the domain name.

Q. Is the dispute resolution viable?

A. Not if the TM owner wishes to use the domain name because the domain name will
be put on hold indefinitely.

Q. What is the new method for domain name dispute resolution?

A. The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) which applies to any domain name
confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark, not simply an identical one.

Q. What is the complainant’s burden of proof?

A. They are three
1. The registrant’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or
service mark of the complainant;
2. The registrant has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name;
3. The domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

Q. What are some indicators of bad faith?

A. (1) Respondent’s offer to sell the domain name
(2) no use of the domain name
(3) attempt to show affiliation or trade off the goodwill of the complainant
(4) failure to file a response
(5) pattern of registering domain name consisting of marks belonging to others who are
not affiliated with respondent
(6) suspect timing in that respondent was aware of complainant’s prior rights

Q. Please give a short summary of the proceedings.

A. Certainly.
1. A complaint is filed in hard copy and via e-mail – this should request transfer of
domain name and not cancellation; a provider (such as WIPO) is selected, and the
panelists must be selected.
2. A response is filed 20 days from commencement date in hard copy and e-mail.

Q. Are precedents respected?

A. Some UDRP decisions have cited other decisions as precedent but there are many
inconsisted decisions.

Yahoo! Inc. v. Net Games, Inc.

Yahoo owns the trademarks YAHOO! and YAHOO!; services include both local and
international web directory and search services, online games, people searches. Net
Games uses the domain name yahoops.com for a gambling website that offers
gambling on a variety of sports, including basketball, hockey, tennis, and boxing. Yahoo
filed a cease-and-desist letter but Net Games claims that it uses the name with a bona
fide offering of goods, has used the name for many months without objection and it
does not promote search engines nor cause actual confusion.

Held: Based on the 3 factor test, (1) confusion - a reader is likely to believe that the
subject domain name is related to the comlainant and its mark.; (2) legitimate right – it
is a reasonable inference that the subject domain name was created with YAHOO!’s
mark in mind. Net Games has spent little time and money to develop the site, and it
cannot be said to have legitimate interest in the domain name; (3) bad faith – but there
is no bad faith. The only proof alleged is that Net Games is benefiting from the notoriety
of its mark. This is not enough.

Philips v. Park Kyoung Seok

Philips (Netherlands) owns the TM Philips. Park acquired “philips.com.ph” and

registered it with dotPHone, Inc. in RP. There are no active websites for them but are
currently pointed to name servers.When Philips sent it a cease and desist letter, it
replied that it is not willing to sell the domain names yet, but would like to know exactly
about the condition and proposition of those who are interested in these domain names.
Park argues that it used “Philips” because it is an acronym for Philippine Information
Providing Service.

Held: (1) confusion – the names are identical; (2) legitimate rights – Park has no
legitimate right over the TM Philips. It is not supported by any evidence of use, and
reference to the Oxford Dictionary does not disclose such accepted abbreviation. (3)
bad faith – the response to the letter suggests that it was part of Park’s intention to sell
the domain name at some time for valuable consideration. The court also observed a
pattern of registering famous marks in RP. There is no evidence that Park has ever had a
business which attempted to use the domain names.

Yahoo! v. Yahoo Computer Services

Yahoo! (Delaware) is a search engine and Yahoo Computer Services (RP) is a business
in Makati which registered “yahoo.com.ph” and “yahoo.ph.” Yahoo! Claims that it is the
owner of the mark and the use of YCS is infringing. YCS claims that its main income is
from the sale of services and sale of hardware and software. Its income has risen only
1.7% since the domain name was acquired and it is only a small company which has had
1,004 hits on its site.

Held: YCS has no legitimate right of interest in the domain name. Its alleged rights are
based on a certificate of registration of business name. But there is no evidence that
registration of a business name with the DTI of RP provides the registrant with any
exclusive rights with respect to the business name. It did not provide YCS with an
exclusive right to use of the domain name. There is also clear bad faith since it is
inconceivable that YCS could have been unaware of the complainant’s name and TM
when it registered.

Philips v. Relson

Philips Electronics (Netherlands) filed a complaint against Relson Ltd. of Western

Samoa which registered “philips.ws”. Relson did not reply to the complaint.

Held: The fact that Relson failed to provide a response to the complaint does not relieve
the complainant Philips of the burden of proving its case. Though Relson did not
expressly challenge any of the assertions, this cannot simply be taken as an admission.
(1) identity - There is indeed identity of the names. (2) legitimate rights – not proven. Its
allegations say that it has no right to the domain name are no more than the factors
given in the Policy. Mere assertion is not proof. (3) Bad faith – there is no challenge to
the complaint. But there ought not to be any inferences from default other than those
that have been established or can be fairly inferred from the facts in the complaint.
There is also no evidence that there is intention to sell, nor a plan to sell the domain
name.

America Online v. Frank Albanese

America Online uses “aol.com”. Frank registered “aoltrader.com”. AOL filed a complaint
saying that there is use in bad faith, since Frank registered the domain name after AOL’s
adoption of the mark, that they are nearly identical, that Frank has registered numerous
other domain names that infringe upon famous marks including “inteltrader.com,”
“ciscotrader.com,” “ibmtrader.com,” etc.

Held: AOL has not met all the requirements. No question that it is confusingly similar.
However, Frank has rights or legitimate interests to the domain name, since he has used
the domain name with a bona fide offering of services, that is, online stock brokerage
services. There is fair use of the disputed domain name and the use of Frank is merely
descriptive of the services offered by Frank. There is also a disclaimer on the website of
any affiliation with AOL which supports the finding of good faith.

Yahoo! v. Syrynx, Inc.

April ’99, Yahoo officially anounced its acquisition of “broadcast.com”, an internet co.
that specializes in aggregation and broadcast of streaming audio via the internet. But as
early as March ’99, there had been industry speculation on such merger. The day before
Syrynx registered the domain name “yahoobroadcast.com” and “yahoolinux.com” (Mar
’99), Wall Street Journal reported that Yahoo! Was in talks to acquire Broadcast.com.
Yahoo filed a complaint but Syrynx claims that it spent $100-$125K to get the site going
although the site actually connects to an index page displaying a deadline. Syrynx filed
no response.

Held: (1) identical – established; (2) legitimate use – respondent has to prove use or
preparation to use; that he has been commonly known by the disputed domain name,
and that he is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name with no intent
for commercial gain. Here, Syrynx is in default and he has failed to prove the factors; (3)
the name is also registered in bad faith, because it has registered multiple domain
names all identical to names belonging to Yahoo.

Arthur Guinness v. Dejan Macesic

Arthur Guiness (Ireline) owns the TM “Guinness” for beer. Dejan registered the domain
name “guiness.com” for a website dedicated to the discussion of home brewing and
sports.

Held: (1) identity – Dejan is not infringing on Arthur’s mark as he is not selling similar
wares or services. Guinness has other products like the Guinness World Book of
Records, Guinness Flight, Guinness Group. The word “guinness” is not automatically
associated with “guinness beer”. There is also a legitimate noncommercial, fair use of
the domain name with no intent for commercial gain. Revenues are modest and serve to
cover hosting and maintenance costs. Also, there is no bad faith since every effort has
been made to eliminate the likelihood of any possible mistaken association of the site
with the beer.

Q. What are the factors showing bad faith?

A. The factors are:
(i) circumstances that indicate that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the
domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the
domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or
service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess
of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain
name;
(ii) registration of the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or
service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that
the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;
(iii) registration of the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business
of a competitor;
(iv) by using the domain name, intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to the Respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a
likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location or of a product or service on it or a
location.

Q. Is the UDRP available to RP companies for violation of domain names?

A. Yes, since jurisdiction is acquired by UDRP when parties submit to its jurisdiction.

Q. A UK company registeres “jollibee.uk”, can Jollibee file a case against it in RP RTC’s?

A. No. RP court can’t acquire jurisdiction over that foreign firm, the cause of action of
Jollibee would not be on RP law, and this case differs from traditional TM infringement
cases in many aspects.

Abuse of Web Technologies

Q. What are the issues in linking?

A. Linking is vital to the seamless functioning of the web, because it reduces the need to
use complex address and provides nearly instantaneous access to other sites of
interest. Linking increases “hits” which increases advertising revenues. But the problem
primarily is that one loses track of exactly whose website one is on, where the
information is coming from, and how current it is.

Q. What are the dangers of framing?

A. In framing, a user reads content from one site in another’s site. In the Total News
case, plaintiff objected not to linking per se but only to partial linking, where their
advertising has been edited or deleted and the defendants have substituted their own
advertising. Implied license to link did not permit any right to alter.

Q. Summarize the dangers of framing.

A. They are: (1) Loss of advertising revenue, and (2) Confusion over the ownership of a
site

Q. What is a metatag?
A. It is a software parameter of HTML, where a website creator can describe what is
available in that particular site, and search engines rely on that to match a website to a
search query.

Q. What is cyberstuffing?
A. It is the placing of multiple entries of a keyword on the face of a webpage. It can be
invisible on the face of a webpage (black lettering against black background) or from
repeated use of a word (e.g. This site is not related to X, is not endorsed by X, we don’t
use X, X, sorry if you see this, X, we love you.)

Q. What is the problem brought about by metatagging and cyberstuffing?

A. Internet advertising erevenues are driven by the number of hits or times a certainw
ebsite is accessed. The purpose of both is to lure persons searching the third-party
trademark to an unrelated website.

Q. Cause of action in metatagging and cyberstuffing?

A. Unfair competition.

Q. What is an aggregation site?

A. A site that essentially serves as a specialized search engine. An auction aggregation
site will serve to search multiple auction sites by use of automated software programs.

Q. Cause of action.
A. In one case, eBay filed for trespass, false advertising, trademark dilution, computer
fraud and abuse, unfair competition, unjust enrichment. The court granted it an
injunction since it was found that the aggregation site’s actions was unauthorized and
the proximate cause of injury suffered by eBay due to loss of bandwidth or server
capacity.

Q. What is mousetrapping?
A. Here, when one views a webpage, he is unable to go back to any of the previous
pages visited and is trapped at the last site viewed.

Q. What are webrings?

A. Webrings are a web within a web, where owners of websites with a common theme
band together to arrange sites into linked circles. For examples, there can be a Star Trek
webring, etc.

Q. What are possible violations in webrings?

A. There could be violation on how the trademarks are used.

Q. Will an action in RP against “sucks” sites prosper? E.g., jollibeesucks.com,

ateneosucks.com.
A. Possible causes of action would be violation of abuse of right provisions under Art.
19, 20, 21 of the Civil Code, and that the freedom of speech does not extend to that.

Q. US firm distributing porn over the net. How can RP stop pornographers over the
internet?
A. Maybe through ISP’s, under the E-Commerce Act.
Posted by Elmer Brabante at 10:35 PM

No comments:
Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Picture Window theme. Powered by Blogger.