JOSE MARIA COLLEGE OF LAW

Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights

INTRODUCTION/PRELIMINARIES
PART 1: THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE

1. EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CORP v CA, BPTTT, and H.D. Lee Co., Inc.
GR No. 100098, 29 December 1995
Kapunan, J.

FACTS: H.D. Lee Co., Inc. is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, USA filed
with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) a Petition for Cancellation
of Registration (Supplemental Register) for the trademark “STYLISTIC MR. LEE” used on skirts,
jeans, blouses, socks, briefs, jackets, jogging suits, dresses, shorts, shirts and lingerie under Class 25
issued in the name of Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corp, a domestic corporation organized and
existing under Philippine laws.

H.D. Lee Co., Inc. Contention

Emerald Garment’s trademark “so closely resembled its own trademark, ‘LEE’ as previously
registered and used in the Philippines, and was not abandoned, which may cause confusion, mistake
and deception on the part of the purchasing public as to the origin of the goods.

Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corp.’s Contention

Its trademark was entirely and unmistakably different from that of H.D. Lee and that its certificate of
registration was legally and validly granted.

Director of Patents Decision

Granted H.D. Lee’s petition for cancellation and opposition to registration. It found H.D. Lee as the
prior registrant of the trademark ‘LEE’ in the Philippines, and that the trademark of Emerald Garment
was confusingly similar to H.D. Lee’s mark using the test of dominancy.

CA Decision
Affirmed the decision of the Director of Patents, and subsequently rejected Emerald Garment’s
motion for reconsideration.

It found that the word “LEE” is the most prominent and distinctive feature of the Emerald Garment’s
trademark and all of the H.D. Lee’s ‘LEE’ trademarks. It is the mark which draws the attention of the
buyer and leads him to conclude that the goods originated from the same manufacturer. While it is
true that there are other words such as "STYLISTIC", printed in the Emerald Garment’s label, such
word is printed in such small letters over the word "LEE" that it is not conspicuous enough to draw
the attention of ordinary buyers whereas the word "LEE" is printed across the label in big, bold letters
and of the same color, style, type and size of lettering as that of the trademark of H.D. Lee. The
alleged difference is too insubstantial to be noticeable. Even granting arguendo that the word
"STYLISTIC" is conspicuous enough to draw attention, the goods may easily be mistaken for just
another variation or line of garments under H.D. Lee’s "LEE" trademarks in view of the fact that it
has registered trademarks which use other words in addition to the principal mark "LEE" such as
"LEE RIDERS", "LEESURES" and "LEE LEENS". The likelihood of confusion is further made more
probable by the fact that both parties are engaged in the same line of business.

The determinative factor in ascertaining whether or not the marks are confusingly similar to each
other is not whether the challenged mark would actually cause confusion or deception of the
purchasers but whether the use of such mark would likely cause confusion or mistake on the part of
the buying public.

ISSUE: Whether or not Emerald Garment’s trademark STYLISTIC MR. LEE is confusingly similar
with the H.D. Lee’s trademark

PEMBRAIDA PAKAN ANDOY-SANTIAGO

JOSE MARIA COLLEGE OF LAW
Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights

RULING: Yes

The pertinent provision of R.A. No. 166 (Trademark Law) states thus:
Sec. 22. Infringement, what constitutes. — Any person who shall use, without the consent of
the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of any registered
mark or trade-name in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods,
business or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or
mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services,
or identity of such business; or reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitable any such
mark or trade-name and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to
labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used
upon or in connection with such goods, business or services; shall be liable to a civil action by
the registrant for any or all of the remedies herein provided.

The essential element of infringement is colorable imitation. This term has been defined as "such a
close or ingenious imitation as to be calculated to deceive ordinary purchasers, or such resemblance of
the infringing mark to the original as to deceive an ordinary purchaser giving such attention as a
purchaser usually gives, and to cause him to purchase the one supposing it to be the other.” Colorable
imitation does not mean such similitude as amounts to identity. Nor does it require that all the details
be literally copied. Colorable imitation refers to such similarity in form, content, words, sound,
meaning, special arrangement, or general appearance of the trademark or tradename with that of the
other mark or tradename in their over-all presentation or in their essential, substantive and distinctive
parts as would likely mislead or confuse persons in the ordinary course of purchasing the genuine
article.

In determining whether colorable imitation exists, jurisprudence has developed two kinds of tests —
the Dominancy Test applied in Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and other cases and the Holistic
Test developed in Del Monte Corporation v. Court of Appeals and its proponent cases.

As its title implies, the test of dominancy focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the
competing trademarks which might cause confusion or deception and thus constitutes infringement.
“If the competing trademark contains the main or essential or dominant features of another, and
confusion and deception is likely to result, infringement takes place. Duplication or imitation is not
necessary; nor it is necessary that the infringing label should suggest an effort to imitate”.

On the other side of the spectrum, the holistic test mandates that the entirety of the marks in question
must be considered in determining confusing similarity. “In determining whether the trademarks are
confusingly similar, a comparison of the words is not the only determinant factor. The trademarks in
their entirety as they appear in their respective labels or hang tags must also be considered in relation
to the goods to which they are attached. The discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the
predominant words but also on the other features appearing in both labels in order that he may draw
his conclusion whether one is confusingly similar to the other.”

PEMBRAIDA PAKAN ANDOY-SANTIAGO

JOSE MARIA COLLEGE OF LAW
Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights

2. PRIBHDAS MIRPURI v CA, Director of Patents and the Barbizon Corp.

G.R. No. 114508, 19 November 1999
Puno, J.

FACTS: Lolita Escobar, the predecessor-in-interest of Pribhdas Mirpuri filed an application with the
Bureau of Patents for the registration of the trademark “Barbizon” for use in brassieres and ladies
undergarments. She alleged that she had been manufacturing and selling these products under the firm
name "L & BM Commercial".

Barbizon Corporation, a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of New York,
U.S.A., opposed the application.

Barbizon Corporation Contention

The mark BARBIZON of Mirpuri is confusingly similar to the trademark BARBIZON which it owns
and has not abandoned. That it will be damaged by the registration of the mark BARBIZON and its
business reputation and goodwill will suffer great and irreparable injury, and that such use constitutes
an unlawful appropriation of a mark previously used in the Philippines and not abandoned and
therefore a statutory violation of Section 4 (d) of Republic Act No. 166, as amended.

The Director of Patents dismissed Barbizon Corp.’s opposition. Lolita Escobar was issued a certificate
of registration for the trademark "Barbizon." The trademark was "for use in "brassieres and lady's
underwear garments like panties." She later assigned all her rights and interest over the trademark to
Pribhdas J. Mirpuri who, under his firm name then, the "Bonito Enterprises," was the sole and
exclusive distributor of Escobar's "Barbizon" products. However, Escobar failed to file with the
Bureau of Patents the Affidavit of Use of the trademark required under Section 12 of RA 166, the
Philippine Trademark Law. Due to this failure, the Bureau of Patents cancelled Escobar's certificate of
registration.

Escobar reapplied for registration of the cancelled trademark. Mirpuri filed his own application for
registration of Escobar's trademark. Escobar later assigned her application to Mirpuri which was
opposed by Barbizon Corp., invoking Art. 6 of the Paris Convention.

Director of Patents Decision

Declared Barbizon’s opposition barred

CA Decision
Reversed the ruling of the Director of Patents

ISSUE: Whether or not the Convention of Paris for the Protection of Industrial Property affords
protection to a foreign corporation against a Philippine applicant for the registration of a similar
trademark.

RULING: Yes

The Convention of Paris for the Protection of Industrial Property, otherwise known as the Paris
Convention, is a multilateral treaty that seeks to protect industrial property consisting of patents,
utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names and indications of source or
appellations of origin, and at the same time aims to repress unfair competition. The Convention is
essentially a compact among various countries which, as members of the Union, have pledged to
accord to citizens of the other member countries trademark and other rights comparable to those
accorded their own citizens by their domestic laws for an effective protection against unfair
competition. In short, foreign nationals are to be given the same treatment in each of the member
countries as that country makes available to its own citizens. Nationals of the various member nations
are thus assured of a certain minimum of international protection of their industrial property.

PEMBRAIDA PAKAN ANDOY-SANTIAGO

JOSE MARIA COLLEGE OF LAW
Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights

In the case at bar, Barbizon Corp. anchors its cause of action on the first paragraph of Article 6 of the
Paris Convention which reads as follows:
(1) The countries of the Union undertake, either administratively if their legislation so
permits, or at the request of an interested party, to refuse or to cancel the registration and to
prohibit the use, of a trademark which constitutes a reproduction, an imitation, or a
translation, liable to create confusion, of a mark considered by the competent authority of the
country of registration or use to be well-known in that country as being already the mark of a
person entitled to the benefits of this Convention and used for identical or similar goods.
These provisions shall also apply when the essential part of the mark constitutes a
reproduction of any such well-known mark or an imitation liable to create confusion
therewith.

This Article governs protection of well-known trademarks. Under the first paragraph, each country of
the Union bound itself to undertake to refuse or cancel the registration, and prohibit the use of a
trademark which is a reproduction, imitation or translation, or any essential part of which trademark
constitutes a reproduction, liable to create confusion, of a mark considered by the competent authority
of the country where protection is sought, to be well-known in the country as being already the mark
of a person entitled to the benefits of the Convention, and used for identical or similar goods.

Art 6 is a self-executing provision and does not require legislative enactment to give it effect in the
member country. It may be applied directly by the tribunals and officials of each member country by
the mere publication or proclamation of the Convention, after its ratification according to the public
law of each state and the order for its execution.

PEMBRAIDA PAKAN ANDOY-SANTIAGO

JOSE MARIA COLLEGE OF LAW
Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights

3. Mighty Corporation v E&J Gallo Winery

G.R. No. 154342, 14 July 2004
Corona, J.

FACTS: E&J Gallo sued Mighty Corp. for trademark and tradename infringement and unfair
competition with damages and preliminary injunction on 12 March 1993.

E&J Gallo Winery’s Contention

Mighty Corp violated Art 6 of the Paris Convention for the protection of Industrial Property and RA
166 [Trademark Law] specifically Secs 22 and 23 [Trademark Infringement], 29 and 30 [Unfair
Competition and False Designation of Origin] and 37 [Tradename Infringement]. It contended that
Mighty Corp. adopted the Gallo trademark to ride on to the latter’s established reputation and
popularity, thus causing confusion, deception and mistake on the part of the purchasing public.

RTC Decision on 26 November 1998

Mighty Corp is liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition and it increased the award of
damages. It made Mighty Corp liable under the Paris Convention and of the Intellectual Property
Code.

CA Decision
Affirmed the RTC Decision and later denied Mighty Corp.’s motion for reconsideration

ISSUE: Whether or not the Intellectual Property Code [RA 8293] is applicable in this case

RULING: No

Only the Paris Convention and the Trademark Infringement Law is applicable in this case.

Gallo sued Mighty Corp. on 12 March 1993 for acts committed during the effectivity of the Paris
Convention and Trademark Law. Yet, the RTC decision was on 26 November 1998 making Mighty
Corp. liable not only under the Paris Convention and Trademark Law but also under Intellectual
Property Code which took effect on 01 January 1998.

It is a fundamental principle that the validity and obligatory force of a law proceed from the fact that it
has first been promulgated. A law that is not yet effective cannot be considered as conclusively known
by the populace. To make a law binding even before it takes effect may lead to the arbitrary exercise
of the legislative power. Nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis. A new state
of the law ought to affect the future, not the past. Any doubt must generally be resolved against the
retroactive operation of laws, whether these are original enactments, amendments or repeals.

The IP Code, repealing the Trademark Law, was approved on June 6, 1997. Section 241 thereof
expressly decreed that it was to take effect only on January 1, 1998, without any provision for
retroactive application. Thus, the Makati RTC and the CA should have limited the consideration of the
present case within the parameters of the Trademark Law and the Paris Convention, the laws in force
at the time of the filing of the complaint.

PEMBRAIDA PAKAN ANDOY-SANTIAGO

JOSE MARIA COLLEGE OF LAW
Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights

4. Tañada, et al v Angara, et al
GR No. 118295, 02 May 1997
Panganiban, J.

FACTS: Following World War 2, global financial leaders held a conference in Bretton Woods to
discuss global economy. The led to establishment of 3 great institutions: the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund and the International Trade Organization. However, the ITO failed to
materialized. Instead, there was the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs. It was on the Uruguay
Round of the GATT that the WTO was then established. The WTO is an institution regulating trade
among nations, including the reduction of tariffs and barriers. Tañada, et al assailed the WTO
Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution, that is, “to develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos, to give preference to qualified
Filipinos and to promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally
produced goods”.

Tañada, et al’s Contention

The “national treatment” and “parity provisions” of the WTO Agreement place nationals and products
of members countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products. This is in contravention of
the “Filipino First” Policy of the Constitution.

ISSUE: Do the provisions of the WTO Agreement contravene provisions in the Constitution,
specifically Sec. 19, Art II and Secs. 10 & 12 of Art XII?

RULING: No

These provisions are not self-executing, it merely guides in the exercise of judicial review in making
laws. While Art. XII mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods and services, it actually intends to
eliminate unfair foreign competition

Moreover, the WTO also protects weak economies via equal voting and preferential treatment (ex.
24% tariff reduction)

PEMBRAIDA PAKAN ANDOY-SANTIAGO

JOSE MARIA COLLEGE OF LAW
Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights

5. Melbarose Sasot and Allandale Sasot v People

GR No. 143193, 29 June 2005
Austria-Martinez, J.

FACTS: Rick Welts, the President of NBA Properties sued Sasot for Unfair Competition for
manufacturing and selling various garment products bearing the appearance of “NBA” names,
symbols and trademarks, inducing the public to believe that the goods offered by them are those of
NBA, to the damage and prejudice of the NBA Properties, Inc. the trademark owner of the NBA.

Sasot’s Contention
The court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of the accused. NBA Properties,
Inc. is a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines cannot be protected by Philippine
patent laws since it is not a registered patentee.

Trial Prosecutor of Manila

He has the original copy of the complaint and that complaint has an attorney-in-fact to represent it.
The State is entitled to prosecute the offense even without the participation of the private
offended party, as the crime charged is a public crime.

Trial Court Decision

It sustained the prosecutor’s argument and denied Sasot’s motion to quash.

CA Ruling
It dismissed Sasot’s special civil action for certiorari and subsequently denied Sasot’s motion for
reconsideration

ISSUE: Whether or not a foreign corporation not engaged and licensed to do business in the
Philippines may maintain a course of action for unfair competition.

RULING: Yes

The crime of unfair competition is punishable under Art 189 of the RPC is a public crime. It is
essentially an act against the state and it is the latter which principally stands as the injured party. The
complainants capacity to sue in such case becomes immaterial.

We must recognize our duties and the rights of foreign states under the Paris Convention for the
protection of industrial property to which the Philippines and France are parties. We are simply
interpreting and enforcing A solemn international commitment of the Philippines embodied in a
multilateral treaty to which we are a party and which we entered into because it is in our national
interest to do so.

PEMBRAIDA PAKAN ANDOY-SANTIAGO

JOSE MARIA COLLEGE OF LAW
Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights

6. Elidad Kho v CA and Summerville

GR No. 115758, 19 March 2002
De Leon, Jr, J

FACTS: Kho prayed for preliminary injunction against Summerville

Kho’s Contention
She is the registered owner of the copyrights Chin Chun Su and Oval facial cream container or case.
She has patent rights on Chin Chun Su for medicated cream after purchasing the same from Quintin
Cheng, the registered owner there of in the Supplemental Register of the Philippine Patent Office,
that Summerville advertised and sold Kho’s cream products under the brand name Chin Chun Su, in
similar container that Kho uses, thereby misleading the public resulting in Kho’s business sales and
income to decline.

Summerville’s Contention
They are the exclusive and authorized importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun Su products
manufactured by Shun Yi Factory of Taiwan, that it was authorized to register its trade name Chin
Chun Su Medicated Cream with the Philippine Patent Office.

RTC Decision
It barred Kho from using the trademark Chin Chun Su and upheld Summerville’s right to use it.

CA Decision
It denied Kho’s motion for reconsideration

ISSUE: Whether or not a copyright and patent over the name and container of a beauty cream
product would entitle the registrant to the use and the ownership over the same to the exclusion of
others

RULING: No

The name and container of a beauty cream product are proper subjects of a trademark inasmuch as
the same falls squarely within its definition. In order to be entitled to exclusively use the same in the
sale of the beauty cream product, the user must sufficiently prove that she registered or used it before
anybody else did.

TRADEMARK TRADENAME COPYRIGHT PATENTABLE

INVENTIONS
Any visible sign The name or confined to literary any technical solution
capable of designation identifying and artistic works of a problem in any
distinguishing the or distinguishing an which are original field of human activity
goods (trademark) or enterprise[[[p[p. intellectual creations which is new, involves
services (service , , . ; in the literary and an inventive step and
mark) of an enterprise artistic domain that is industrially
and shall include a protected from the applicable
stamped or marked moment of their
container of goods creation
7. Pearl and Dean (Phil) v Shoemart, Inc and North Edsa Marketing, Inc.
GR No. 148222, 15 August 2003
Corona, J.

FACTS: Pearl and Dean (Phil.), Inc. is engaged in the manufacture of advertising display units
simply referred to as light boxes. PDI was able to secure a Certificate of Copyright Registration, the
advertising light boxes were marketed under the trademark “Poster Ads”., PDI negotiated with

PEMBRAIDA PAKAN ANDOY-SANTIAGO

JOSE MARIA COLLEGE OF LAW
Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights

Shoemart, Inc. for the lease and installation of the light boxes in certain SM Makati and SM Cubao.
PDI submitted for signature the contracts covering both stores, but only the contract for SM Makati,
however, was returned signed. Eventually, SMI informed PDI that it was rescinding the contract for
SM Makati due to non-performance of the terms thereof.

PDI then found out that exact copies of its light boxes were installed at different SM stores. It was
further discovered that SMI’s sister company, North Edsa Marketing Inc., sells advertising space in
lighted display units located in SMI’s different branches. PDI sent a letter to both SMI and NEMI
enjoining them to cease using the subject light boxes, remove the same from SMI’s establishments
and to discontinue the use of the trademark “Poster Ads,” as well as the payment of compensatory
damages.

PDI Then filed case for infringement of trademark and copyright, unfair competition and claim for
damages

SMI’s Contention
It independently developed its poster panels using commonly known techniques and available
technology, without notice of or reference to PDI's copyright.

RTC Decision
SMI and NEMI are jointly and severally liable for trademark and copyright infringement

CA Decision
It reversed the trial court decision

ISSUE: Whether or not the light box depicted in such engineering drawings ipso facto also protected
by such copyright

RULING: No

Copyright was limited to the drawings alone and not to the light box itself.

PDI’s Copyright Certificate issued by the National Library clearly stated that it was for a class “O”
work under Sec 2 of PD 49 [the prevailing law at the time]. Such classification only includes “Prints,
pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags and box wraps. Copyright, in the strict sense of
the term, is purely a statutory right. Being a mere statutory grant, the rights are limited to what the
statute confers. It may be maintained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects and by the persons,
and on terms and conditions specified in the statute. Accordingly, in can cover only the works falling
within the statutory enumeration or description. Hence, PDI’s copyright protection extended only to
the technical drawings and not to the light box itself because the latter was not at all in the category of
“prints, pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags and box wraps.”. What the law does not
include, it excludes.

Moreover, the lightbox is not a literary or artistic piece which could be copyrighted under the
copyright law.

PEMBRAIDA PAKAN ANDOY-SANTIAGO

JOSE MARIA COLLEGE OF LAW
Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights

JURISDICTION OVER INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS OF THE BUREAU OF LEGAL

AFFAIRS

8. Phil Pharmawealth, Inc. v Pfizer, Inc.

GR No. 167715, 17 November 2010
Peralta, J.

FACTS: Pfizer is the registered owner of a Letters Patent. It came to know that Phil Pharmawealth
submitted bids for the supply of Sulbactam Ampicillin to several hospitals without the consent of
Pfizer and in violation of its intellectual property rights. Pfizer then prayed for permanent injunction,
damages and the forfeiture and impounding of the alleged infringing products.

BLA-IPO Decision
Issued preliminary injunction

RTC Decision
Directed the issuance of temporary restraining order

ISSUE: What tribunal has the jurisdiction to review the decision of the Department of Legal Affairs
of the Intellectual Property Office?

RULING: If it is a decision of the Director of the BLA-IPO, then the exclusive appellate jurisdiction
is exercised by the Director General of the IPO. If it is an interlocutory order of the BLA-IPO, then
the appellate jurisdiction belongs to the Court of Appeals.

RA 8293 is silent with respect to any remedy available to litigants who intend to question an
interlocutory order issued by the BLA-IPO. Moreover, Sec 1(c), Rule 14 of the Rules and Regulations
on Administrative Complaints for Violation of Laws Involving Intellectual Property Rights simply
provides that interlocutory orders shall not be appealable. The said Rules and Regulations do not
prescribe a procedure within the administrative machinery to be followed in assailing orders issued by
the BLA-IPO pending resolution of a case filed with them. Hence, in the absence of such a remedy,
the provisions of the Rules of Court shall apply in suppletory manner, as provided under Sec 3, Rule 1
of the same Rules and Regulations. Hence, in the present case, Phil Pharmawealth correctly resorted
to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari with the CA to question the assailed Orders of the
BLA-IPO, as they cannot appeal therefrom and they have no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the course of law.

PEMBRAIDA PAKAN ANDOY-SANTIAGO

JOSE MARIA COLLEGE OF LAW
Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights

Bureau of Legal Affairs

In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v Sehwani, Inc. and/or Benita’s Frites, Inc.

GR No 179127, 24 December 2008

FACTS: IN-N-OUT BURGER, INC., is a business entity incorporated under the laws of California. It
is a signatory to the Convention of Paris on Protection of Industrial Property and the TRIPS
Agreement. It is engaged mainly in the restaurant business, but it has never engaged in business in the
Philippines.

Sehwani, Incorporated and Benita Frites, Inc. are corporations organized in the Philippines. It filed
with the BPTTT an application for the registration of the mark “IN N OUT (the inside of the letter
“O” formed like a star). Its application was approved and a certificate of registration was issued in its
name. Sehwani, Incorporated and Benita Frites, Inc. entered into a Licensing Agreement, wherein the
former entitled the latter to use its registered mark, “IN N OUT.”

In-N-Out Burger filed trademark and service mark applications with the Bureau of Trademarks for the
“IN-N-OUT” and “IN-N-OUT Burger & Arrow Design. It then found out that Sehwani, Incorporated
had already obtained Trademark Registration for the mark “IN N OUT (the inside of the letter “O”
formed like a star).” Thus, it sent a demand letter directing Sehwani, Inc. to cease and desist from
claiming ownership of the mark “IN-N-OUT” and to voluntarily cancel its trademark registration.
Sehwani Inc. did not accede to In-N-Out Burger’s demand but it expressed its willingness to surrender
its registration for a consideration.

ISSUE: Whether or not IPO have jurisdiction of cases involving unfair competition

RULING: Yes

Section 10 of the Intellectual Property Code specifically identifies the functions of the Bureau of
Legal Affairs, thus:

Section 10. The Bureau of Legal Affairs.“The Bureau of Legal Affairs shall have the following
functions:

10.1 Hear and decide opposition to the application for registration of marks; cancellation of
trademarks; subject to the provisions of Section 64, cancellation of patents and utility models,
and industrial designs; and petitions for compulsory licensing of patents;
10.2 (a) Exercise original jurisdiction in administrative complaints for violations of laws
involving intellectual property rights; Provided, That its jurisdiction is limited to complaints
where the total damages claimed are not less than Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000): Provided, futher, That availment of the provisional remedies may be granted in
accordance with the Rules of Court. Xxx

PEMBRAIDA PAKAN ANDOY-SANTIAGO