Philippines: Court issues judgment on confusion of business and unfair competition
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network, explains why AI technologies were not part of an update to its cross-licensing project
Kirkland & Ellis partners explain how they secured the dismissal of a patent case in which the other side had lied under oath
Managing IP understands the association had been considering other options, including Madrid or Vienna, after concerns were raised over Dubai’s positions on various rights
Chris Marando tells Managing IP that he's excited to work on PTAB matters at Perkins Coie, which recently hired another lawyer from his former firm
To mark Pride month, Darren Smyth, cochair of IP Out, says the legal profession must not forget that some members still face exclusion and hostility
Lawyers say the opening of the Milan central division this month is likely to boost activity in Italy, which has been modest so far
Sharon Urias tells us why she still has to explain the difference between copyright and trademarks
In the latest episode, Managing IP is joined by Gwilym Roberts and Lee Davies from the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys to discuss the UPC, IP ministers, diversity and more
Lawyers at Tomkins and Bomhard IP explain how they finally secured victory over McDonald’s in long-running ‘Big Mac’ trademark dispute
Technical excellence is paramount for clients looking to hire new advisers, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 corporate counsel
Gift this article