INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (2019)

PART I: TRADEMARKS AND TRADENAMES

Atty. Red Jose

I. Intellectual Property, in General (lecture)

II. International Agreements

A. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property

- Article 2(1 & 2) “National Treatment Principle”

- Article 2(3) “ “Jurisdiction and Requirements..”
- Article (3) - “Non-Member States”
- Article (4) A, B, C, D - “Right of Priority”

B. Agreement on the Trade Related Aspects on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

- Article 15 “Protectable Subject Matter”

C. Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement (no readings)

III. Governing Law/ Rules

A. Republic Act No. 8293 (IPC), Part III (implemented by Rules and Regulations for Trademarks,
Service Marks, Trade Names, and Marked and Stamped Containers)

IV. Definitions

Section 121.1; 121.2, IPC, relate to Article 15 of the TRIPS

 Distilleria Washington v. CA, 263 SCRA 303, G.R. No. 120961 (17 October 1996)

V. Functions of trademarks

 Ang v. Teodoro, 74 Phil. 50 (14 December 1942)

 Etepha v. Director of Patents, 16 SCRA 495, G.R. No. L-20635 (31 March 1966)
 Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 516 (1999)

VI. How Are Marks Acquired?

Section 122, IPC

Contrast this with Sec. 2-A of Republic Act No. 166 and cases decided under R. A. No,
166:

 Kabushi Kaisha Isetan v. IAC, 203 SCRA 583, G.R. No. 75420 (15 November 1991)
 Philip Morris v. CA, 224 SCRA 576, G.R. No. 91332 (16 July 1993)

VII. Standard of Registrability

A. Absolute grounds:
  Abercrombie & Fitch vs. Hunting World, 327 F. Supp. 657 (1971) No. 70 Civ. 377. United
States District Court, S.D., New York (April 23, 1971)

A.1. Generic Sec. 123.1 (h) and Sec 126, IPC

 Pearl & Dean v. Shoemart, 409 SCRA 231 (2003)

A.2. Descriptive

 Ongaugui vs. Phil. Patent Office, 96 Phil 673, 676

 Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112012 (April 4, 2001)

A.3. Suggestive

A.4. Arbitrary

 UFC Philippine Inc. vs. Barrio Fiesta, G.R. No. 198889. (January 20, 2016)

A.5. Coined/Fanciful -

- Risks

 E.I Dupont vs. Yoshida Int’l, 393 F. Supp. 502 (March 20,1975)
 American Thermos vs. Aladdin Industries, 207 F. Supp. 9 (June 26, 1962)

B. Relative grounds:

- Sec. 123.1 (d), (e) & (f)

VIII. What Marks May Not Be Registered?

- Sec. 123 (and its subparagraphs), IPC

(a) Immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter…

(b) Flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the Philippines…

- See, Article 6 (1)(a-c) of the Paris Convention

- See, Article 34, Republic Act 8491

(c) Name, portrait or signature identifying a particular living individual …

 De la Rama Steamship Company v. National Development Company 35 SCRA 567, 583

(1970)

(d) Identical with registered mark, or mark with earlier filing or priority date..

d.1 Degree of Similarity/ Likelihood of Confusion

 Mighty Corporation v. E & J Gallo Winery, 484 SCRA 473, 510-511 (2004)
  Societe Des Produits Nestle v. CA, 356 SCRA 207 (2001)
 Amigo Manufacturing vs. Cluett Peabody, G.R. No. 139300 (March 14, 2001)

d.2 Channels of Trade

 Quality Inns International, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corporarion, 695 F. Supp. 198, Civ. No. PN-
87-2606. United States District Court, D. Maryland. (September 16, 1988).

d.3 Idem Sonans

 Marvex Commercial vs. Petra Haw Pia, G.R. No. L-19297 (Dec 22, 1966)

d.4 Standard of consumer

 Del Monte vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78325 (January 25, 1990)
 Emerald Garment Manufacturing v. CA, 251 SCRA 600, G.R. No. 100098 (29 December
1995)
 Philip Morris v. Fortune Tobacco, G.R. No. 158589 (27 June 2006)
 Etepha v. Director of Patents, 16 SCRA 495, G.R. No. L-20635 (31 March 1966)
d. 5 Goods must be related

- See Section 144.1 and 144.2, IPC

 Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. CA, 116 SCRA 336

 Faberge Inc. vs. IAC, , 215 SCRA 316
 Philippine Refining Company v. Ng Sam, 115 SCRA 472, G.R. No. L-26676 (30 July 1982)
 Fruit of the Loom Inc., vs. CA, G.R. No. L-32747 (November 29, 1984)
 Kensonic, Inc. vs. Uni-Line Multi-Resources, Inc., G.R. Nos. 211820-21(June 6, 2018l) G.R.
Nos. 211834-35 ( June 6, 2018)

(e) Identical ort confusingly similar to [ ] Well known mark, whether or not registered
(f) Identical ort confusingly similar to [ ] Well known mark that is registered

- See Rules and Regulation on Trademarks, Service Marks, Trade Names and Marked or Stamped
Containers, Rule 102

 Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 516 (1999)

 Shewani, Inc. vs. In-N-Out Burger Inc.Levi Strauss & Co. & Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. vs.
Clinton Apparelle, Inc. G.R. No. 138900 (2005)
 Ecole de Cuisine Manille (Cordon Bleu of the Philippines), Inc. vs. Renaud Cointreau &
CIE and Le Cordon Bleu Int’l, B.V. G.R. No. 185830 ( June 5, 2013)

(g) Is likely to mislead the public..

 Ong Ai Gui vs. Phil. Patent Office 96 Phil 673, 676 (1955)
 Materials In re Intex Plastics Corp. 215 USPQ 1045 (TTAB 1982)

(h) Consists exclusively of signs that are generic..

  Etepha v. Director of Patents, 16 SCRA 495

(i) Designatory…

(j) Indicators of kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, time or
production …

 Compania Gral de Tabacco v. Alhambra Cigar, 33 Phil 485, G.R. No. 10619 (10 February
1916)
 Baxter v. Zuasua, 5 Phil. 160, G.R. No. 1750 (26 October 1905)

(k) Consists of shapes that may be necessitated by technical factors …

 Victorias Milling vs. Ong Su 79 SCRA 207, 215 (1977)

(l) Consists of color alone..

 Compania Gral de Tabacco v. Alhambra Cigar, 33 Phil 485, G.R. No. 10619 (10 February
1916)
 Asia Brewery v. CA, 224 SCRA 437 (1993), G.R. No. 103543 (5 July 1993)

(m) Is contrary to public order or morality

Exception: Secondary meaning -

- Sec 123.2, IPC

 Ang v. Teodoro, 74 Phil 50

 American Trading Company v. H.E Heacock 285 U.S. 247 (1932)
 Arce Sons v. Selecta Biscuits, 1 SCRA 253, G.R. No. L-14761 (28 January 1961)

IX. Application for Registration

1. Application

Sec. 3, IPC
Sections 124 (and its subparagraphs), 125, 126, 128, 130
(and its subparagraphs), IPC

 Munoz & Company v. Struckmann & Company, G.R. No. L-3224 (October 17, 1907)

Sec. 124.2, IPC

Sec. 131 (and its subparagraphs), IPC
(Claim of Priority Date)

2. Assignment of Application Number and Filing Date

Sec. 127, IPC

Sec. 132, (and its subparagraphs), IPC
3. Examination

Sec. 133 (and its subparagraphs), IPC

Sec. 126, IPC
Sec. 129, IPC

4. Publication

Sec. 133.2, IPC

5. Opposition

Sections 134 and 135, IPC

 Bata Industries v. CA, 114 SCRA 318, G.R. No. L-53672 (31 May 1982)
 Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 516 (1999)

6. Issuance and Publication of Certificate

Sections 136 and 137, IPC

Sec. 138, IPC
Sec. 139, IPC
Sec. 144 (and its subparagraphs), IPC
Sec. 4.2, IPC

7. Duration of Certificate

Sec. 145, IPC

8. Voluntary Cancellation of Certificate

Sec. 140, IPC

9. Correction of Mistakes

Sections 142 and 143, IPC

10. Renewal

Sec. 146 (and its subparagraphs), IPC

11. Use Requirements

Sec. 174.2, IPC

Sec. 145, IPC

07 July 2017 IPOPHIL Memorandum Circular No. 17-010

Sec. 152.2, IPC

Sec. 152.3, IPC
Sec. 152.4, IPC
  W Land Holding , Inc. vs. Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc., G.R. No. 222366.
(December 4, 2017)

Non-Use Sec. 152.1

12. Madrid Protocol

 Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines vs. Ochoa [G.R. No. 204605. July 19,
2016.

13. Rights Conferred

- Sec. 147 (and its subparagraphs), IPC as amended by RA No. 9502 (Universally
Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008)
- Sec. 157.1, IPC - further limitation on protection
- Sec. 4.2 in relation to Sections 87 and 88, 92, IPC
- Sec. 149 (and its subparagraphs), IPC
- Sec. 150 (and its subparagraphs), IPC
- Sec. 231, IPC

X. Infringement

- Section 239, IPC (repeals)

- Section 155, IPC (Trademark Infringement)

A. Elements:

 Conrad & Co. vs. CA, G.R. No. 115115 (July 18, 1995)
 Victorio P. Diaz vs. Ppl of the Philippines and Levi Strauss (Phils), Inc., G.R. No. 180677,
(February 18, 2013)

B. Dominancy vs. Holistic Test

 ABS-CBN Publishing Inc. v. Director of Bureau of Trademarks, G.R. No. 217916 (June 20,
2018)
 San Miguel Pure Foods Co., Inc. v. Foodsphere, Inc. G.R. Nos. 217781 & 217788 (June 20,
2018)
 Societe Des Produits Nestle v. CA, 356 SCRA 207 (2001)
 Sta. Ana v. Maliwat, 24 SCRA 108
 Mang Inasal Philippines vs. IFP Manufacturing Corporation, G.R. No. 221717 (June 19,
2017)
 Seri Somboonsakdikul vs. Orlane S.A., G.R. No. 188996 (February 1, 2017)

XI. Unfair Competition

- Section 168.1, 168.2, 168.3, IPC

A. Elements

 McDonald’s Corp. vs. L.C. Big Mak Burger, G.R. No. 143993 (August 18, 2004)
  Shirley F. Torres vs. Imelda Perez and Rodrigo Perex, G.R. No. 188225. November 28,
2012; G.R. No. 198728. November 28, 2012

B. Goodwill requirement

 Ang Si Heng vs. Wellington Dept. Store, G.R. No. L-4531 (January 10, 1953)

C. General appearance

 Alhambra Cigar vs. Mojica, G.R. No. L-8937 (March 21, 1914)

D. False Declaration

- Sec. 162, IPC

E. False Designation of Origin or Description

- Section 169.1, IPC

 Parke, Davis & Company v. Doctors Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 104 SCRA 700, 708 (1981)

XII. Prohibition on Importation

Sec 169.2, IPC

XIII. Enforcement:

A. Reciprocity
 Puma vs. IAC, G.R. No. 75067 (February 26, 1988)
B. Alternative cause of action

 Clarke vs. Manila Candy Co., G.R. No. L-10487 (January 23, 1917)

C. What is NOT unfair competition

 Coca-cola Bottlers vs. Gomez, G.R. No. 222428 (February 19, 2019)

XIV. Issue of Parallel Importation

 Yu v. CA, 217 SCRA 328

XV. Defenses

i. Non-Registrability:

- Section 161, IPC

ii. Statute of Limitations:

- Section 226. IPC,

iii. Equitable Principles

- Section 230, IPC

 Ubeda v. Zialcita, 226 U.S. 452 (1913)

iv. “Fair Use”

- Sec. 148, IPC

XVI. Definition of Trade Name

- Section 121.3, IPC

 Juan vs. Juan (G.R. No. 221732; 23 August 2017)

 Converse Rubber Corp. vs. Universal Rubber Products, G.R. No. L-27906 (January 8,
1987)
 Coffee Partners, Inc. v. San Francisco Coffee and Roastery, Inc., G.R. No. 169504, 3 March
2010.

- 165.2, IPC

- Prohibitions:

Section 18 of the Corporation Code

- Generic

 Lyceum of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 610, 616-617 (1993)
 People v. Chan Chu, 45 O.G. 3964, 3968 (1948)

- Geographical names

 Ang Si Heng v. Wellington Department Store, Inc., 92 Phil., 448, 452 (1953)

- Contrary to public morals, deceptive:

- Sec. 165.1, IPC