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 2025

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A $110 million US verdict against Apple and an appellate order staying a $39 million trademark infringement finding against Amazon were also among the top talking points
Attorneys are watching how AI affects trademark registrations and whether a SCOTUS ruling from last year will have broader free speech implications
Patent lawyers explain why they will be keeping an eye on the implications of a pharma case and on changes at the USPTO in the second half of 2025
The insensitive reaction to a UK politician crying on TV proves we have a long way to go before we can say we are tackling workplace wellbeing
Adrian Percer says he was impressed by the firm’s work on billion-dollar cases as well as its culture
In our latest interview with women IP leaders, Catherine Bonner at Murgitroyd discusses technology, training, and teaching
Developments included an update in the VAR dispute between Ballinno and UEFA, the latest CMS updates, and a swathe of market moves
The LMG Life Sciences Americas Awards is thrilled to present the 2025 shortlist
A new order has brought the total security awarded to a Canadian tech company to $45 million, the highest-ever by an Indian court in an IP case
Andrew Blattman reflects on how IP practices have changed and shares his hopes for increased AI use and better performance on the stock market
Gift this article