Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 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: Proof of authority to file action

Many foreign IP owners have observed that in the Philippines there are too many documents required and formalities to be complied with in filing actions for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Generally, technical rules are interpreted liberally. However, in certain instances, for example, to avoid multiplicity of suits, adherence to the procedural rules is necessary, as in the following case.

On September 6 2017, the Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Societe des Produits Nestle v Puregold Price Club (GR No. 217194), dismissing Nestle's appeal due to the failure of the latter to comply with the proper execution of the certification against forum shopping. This was an opposition case filed by Nestle on December 5 2008 against Puregold's application for the trademark "COFFEE MATCH" for being confusingly similar with its "COFFEE-MATE" trademark already registered with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL). On April 16 2012, the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the IPOPHL dismissed Nestle's opposition and held that (i) Nestle's opposition was defective because the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to said opposition did not include a board of directors' resolution or a secretary's certificate that would show the authority of Dennis Jose Barot, Nestle's Regional Intellectual Property Adviser to execute the special power of attorney authorising its Philippine counsel to sign the said certification on behalf of Nestle. Barot's proof of his authority was a power of attorney signed by a Nestle officer whose own authority was not substantiated by a resolution of Nestle's board of directors, or a secretary's certificate attesting to said resolution.

The BLA further held that the term "COFFEE" appearing on both marks is generic or distinctive of the goods, and that the words "MATE" and "MATCH" are visually and aurally different that the consumer cannot mistake one for the other. Nestle appealed to the Office of the Director General, who on February 7 2014, sustained the BLA's decision. Nestle then appealed the ODG's decision to the Court of Appeals, who dismissed the appeal and the subsequent motion for reconsideration outright based on the above procedural lapse.

Nestle appealed the CA decision to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review, and affirmed the CA's decision. Citing the 2004 case of Development Bank of the Philippines v CA, the Supreme Court held that "the failure to attach a copy of a board resolution proving the authority of the representative to sign the certification against forum shopping was fatal to its petition and was sufficient ground to dismiss since the courts are not expected to take judicial notice of board resolutions or secretary's certificates issued by corporations."


Editha R Hechanova

Hechanova & Co., Inc.

Salustiana D. Ty Tower

104 Paseo de Roxas Avenue

Makati City 1229, Philippines

Tel: (63) 2 812-6561

Fax: (63) 2 888-4290

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Significant changes to the standard of law are unlikely, say sources, who note that some justices seemed sceptical that the parties disagreed on the legal standard
Sources say the High Court of Australia’s ruling that reputation is immaterial in trademark infringement cases could stop famous brands from muscling out smaller players
Members from both sides of the US House of Representatives wrote to USPTO director Kathi Vidal on Friday, March 24, expressing their concern about “patent thicketing.”
Charles Hoskin of Singaporean e-commerce platform Shopee, who made the jump from a luxury brand, says honest conversations and collaborations are key to combatting counterfeiting
Adam Williams speaks to Managing IP about the legacy of Brexit and why IP has sometimes got ‘lost in the noise’ at Westminster
Lawyers wish the latest manual had more details on Federal Circuit cases and that training materials for design patent examiners were online
Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further 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