Philippines: Supreme Court addresses the battle of the roasted pig

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Philippines: Supreme Court addresses the battle of the roasted pig

Sponsored by

hechanova-400px.png
carolina-garcia-tavizon-gli8lcaifpa-unsplash-1.jpg

Editha R Hechanova of Hechanova & Co Inc explores a recent judgment in a two-decade long trademark infringement case between two prominent lechon retailers

No Filipino celebration is complete without the roasted pig or ‘lechon’. Some historians say that the Spaniards possibly introduced it when they came to the Philippines in the 16th century, since the word ‘lechon’ is Spanish for ‘pig’, and the dish resembled its cochinillo asado

In the case of Emzee Foods v Elarfoods (GR No. 220558, February 17 2021), the Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals found Emzee guilty of infringement and unfair competition, and further awarded Elarfoods damages and ordered Emzee to cease and desist from using the trademarks ‘Elarz Lechon’, ‘Elar Lechon’, ‘Pig Device’ and ‘On A Bamboo Tray’ on its products. 

The contending marks are shown below:

elarfoods

Emzee

According to the Supreme Court, applying the dominancy test, the word ‘Elar’ is the dominant feature of both marks and considering that they were used on the same ‘lechon’ products, the uncanny resemblance of the marks would even lead buyers to believe that Elarfoods and Emzee are the same entity. Moreover, one of Emzee’s incorporators and shareholders was a former trusted employee of Elarfoods, who had previously eagerly promoted the brand ‘Elar Lechon’, and this knowledge subsequently puts Emzee in bad faith and liable for damages. 

Emzee’s defense is that Elarfoods is not the owner of the mark but belongs to the estate of the spouses Lontoc, and that there is no valid assignment to the latter making the goodwill earned over the years as belonging to the said spouses’ estate. For this, the Supreme Court has given scant consideration, considering that a trademark like any incorporeal right may be disposed of not only by way of assignment. 

Besides, at the time the spouses incorporated Elarfoods, the marks were still unregistered and its assignment was perfected by mere consent without the need of a written contract. What is important according to the Supreme Court is that from the time of the incorporation of Elarfoods, it has exclusively used and appropriated the mark as its own. The fact that Elarfoods is the first entity to have registered the said marks in good faith makes it the true owner. 

The interesting question is why, despite the overwhelming evidence of ownership of Elarfoods of its marks, Emzee insists that Elarfoods is not the owner of the mark. It may be that despite finding Emzee liable for infringement and unfair competition neither the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) nor the Court of Appeals ordered that Emzee cease and desist from using the marks ‘Elarz Lechon’, ‘Elar Lechon’, ‘Pig Device’ and ‘On A Bamboo Tray’, which was a glaring omission noticed by the Supreme Court. 

The absence of this injunction has allowed Emzee to continue and profit from its infringing acts for at least the last 20 years. In this decision the Supreme Court restored the liability of Emzee for exemplary damages and ordered that it cease and desist from using the marks.

 

Editha R Hechanova

President, Hechanova & Co

E: editharh@hechanova.com.ph

 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals its latest rankings for patent work, including which firms are moving up
Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Gift this article