Philippines: Court issues judgment on confusion of business and unfair competition

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Philippines: Court issues judgment on confusion of business and unfair competition

An action for unfair competition in the Philippines has two essential elements as stated by the Supreme Court in a number of cases: (1) confusing similarity in the general appearance of the goods, and (2) intent to deceive the public and deceive a competitor. On the issue of confusion, two types have been noted. These are confusion of goods and confusion of business or source of origin. In the case of Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings, Ltd. v PAPERONE, INC. (G.R. Nos. 213365-66, December 10 2018), the Supreme Court found Paperone guilty of unfair competition.

Asia Pacific, a manufacturer and seller of pulp and premium wood free paper, is the owner of the trademark PAPER ONE applied for at the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL) in 1999 and registered in 2003. The respondent PAPERONE, on the other hand, is engaged in the business of paper conversion, manufacturing table napkins, notebooks and writing pads, and the corporation has existed since 2001. It averred that the Department of Trade and Industry and Securities and Exchange Commission had allowed it to use PAPERONE as its corporate name, and that it did not use PAPERONE as a trademark, but to identify itself only as the manufacturer of the product, as shown below:

ASIA PACIFIC RESOURCES

philippines-1-200.jpg

PAPERONE, INC.

philippines-2-100.jpg

The Supreme Court affirming the decision of the IPOPHL, and reversing the Court of Appeals noted that: (i) the goods of both parties are related as paper products, (ii) PAPER ONE as a trademark of Asia Pacific had been used even before its application in 1999, (iii) some of Paperone's stockholders had knowledge of the existence and use of the mark PAPER ONE and even wrote a letter expressing a desire to be the exclusive distributor of PAPER ONE multi-purpose copy paper, as the evidence showed. The court admitted that while there was a noticeable difference in how the trade name of the respondent PAPERONE was being used on its products in comparison with the trademark of Asia Pacific, "there could likely be confusion as to the origin of the products." Thus, a consumer might conclude that PAPER ONE products were manufactured by or were products of Paperone.

hechanova-editha.jpg
carbonell-grace-christy.jpg

Editha R

Hechanova

Grace Christy

G Carbonell


Hechanova & Co., Inc.Salustiana D. Ty Tower104 Paseo de Roxas AvenueMakati City 1229, PhilippinesTel: (63) 2 812-6561Fax: (63) 2 888-4290editharh@hechanova.com.ph 

www.hechanova.com.ph

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Junior lawyers aren’t unwilling to work hard, as some seniors believe; rather, they are rejecting traditional career advancement models that have limited payoff
Rebekah Gay discusses overcoming self-doubt, supporting the next generation of women lawyers, and how changing client demands are reshaping IP practice
New filing data suggests Germany's grip on UPC litigation remains strong, while Bardehle Pagenberg, Arnold Ruess, Hogan Lovells and Carpmaels notch up notable cases
In 27 years, KASS has expanded to seven countries in southeast Asia and is now eyeing further growth opportunities. Its CEO shares her perspective
Mine Güner discusses bridging law and business, taking the initiative, and why Taylor Swift helped put copyright on the map
Cindy Goh discusses why she launched Cheang & Ariff's IP department, the improving litigation environment in Malaysia and what to consider when using AI
Increased focus on adding patent litigation depth to the firm’s Dallas office was behind the boutique’s most recent hires
IPH's Canadian acquisitions are paying off on paper, but a couple of strong years may not be enough to show that the group's strategy has truly won over the market
Examiner statistics could help patent prosecution practitioners tailor strategies, turning an area of high variability into a potential competitive advantage
The England and Wales High Court’s ruling in Accord v Novartis may not rewrite the law on plausibility, but it does signal a pragmatic approach that could provide greater certainty for life sciences innovators
Gift this article