The Philippines: Accession to the Madrid Protocol is valid
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

The Philippines: Accession to the Madrid Protocol is valid

On July 19 2016, the Supreme Court (SC), in GR 204605, entitled Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines (IPAP) v Hon. Paquito Ochoa, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al, ruled that the Madrid Protocol is an executive agreement and that its ratification by President Aquino is valid and constitutional.

The IPAP, an association of IP law practitioners, filed the action seeking to declare the accession of the Philippines to the Madrid Protocol unconstitutional on the ground of lack of concurrence by the Senate, and because it conflicts with Section 125 of RA 8293 (the IP Code), on the necessity of appointing a resident agent to represent a foreign trade mark applicant.

The SC distinguished between treaties and international agreements which require the Senate's concurrence, and executive agreements which may be validly entered into without the Senate's concurrence. The SC noted that agreements with respect to the registration of trade marks have been concluded by the executive with various countries without the Senate's concurrence. Citing the declaration of state policy with respect to intellectual property as stated in the IP Code, the SC held that the IPAP was mistaken in asserting that there was no congressional act that authorised accession of the Philippines to the Madrid Protocol.

The SC also held that there was no conflict between the Madrid Protocol and the IP Code. The method of registration through the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) as expressly stated in the IP Code is distinct and separate from the method of registration through the WIPO. The IPOPHL requires the designation of a resident agent when it refuses the registration of a mark, and when filing the declaration of actual use.

The Madrid Protocol does not amend nor modify the IP Code since trade mark applications filed through the Madrid Protocol are examined under the provisions of the IP Code. The SC further held that IPAP misapprehends the procedure for examination under the Madrid Protocol, and that the difficulty claimed by IPAP is minimal or inexistent. Hence the SC dismissed the IPAP petition for lack of merit.


Editha R Hechanova

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

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Sources debate the implications of an opinion by Delaware’s chief judge Colm Connolly that lambasted the NPE IP Edge
Five partners reveal how delays in examining trademark applications are affecting their advice to clients and how they pitch new work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Partners at Quinn Emanuel explain how walkie-talkie and real-estate analogies helped them win over a jury at the Eastern District of Texas
The heads of Malaysian firm HHQ’s new technology practice group say they can be frontline advisers on the intersection between AI, blockchain, and IP
Darren Jiron, Finnegan’s managing partner in London, discusses the firm’s growth plans and misconceptions about US firm culture
The EMEA region research cycle has commenced - do not miss this opportunity to nominate your work from 2023!
A former partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, which voted to dissolve in October, has joined McCarter & English
As ChatGPT celebrates its first birthday, we are still grappling with a multitude of IP concerns