The Philippines: Proposed amendments to the IP Code

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

The Philippines: Proposed amendments to the IP Code

On December 22 2017, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) published its proposed amendments to the IP Code (Republic Act No. 8293), just before it closed shop for the Christmas break, notifying the public to give their comments and informing it that the amendments shall be forwarded to the Philippine Congress this January 2018. Some of the major amendments are as follows:

1) Clarifying and expanding the functions and powers of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) which is the adjudication arm of the IPOPHL to include: (a) declaration of marks as well-known, including revocation of said declarations, (b) declaration as true and actual inventor, (c) declaration of ownership or having the right to intellectual property, (d) having original and exclusive jurisdiction over administrative complaints for violation of intellectual property laws, (e) awarding of damages;

2) Replacing the Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau with two new bureaus: (a) the Bureau of Innovation and Business Development, (b) creating the IP Academy;

3) Allowing parallel applications or the filing of two patent applications for the same subject as an invention patent application, and a utility model application within one year from the filing of the first application, which applications shall be processed independently. However, once, the invention patent application has been granted, the utility model registration shall be automatically cancelled, and the letters patent shall be issued;

4) Allowing parts or components of products or handicrafts as subject of industrial design registrations;

5) Giving power to the Director General of the IPOPHL to grant compulsory license to exploit a patented invention even without the agreement of the patent owner;

6) Removing the requirement that a mark has to be visible to be registrable, giving way to possibly including scent or sound marks;

7) Allowing the registration of series of marks, and certification marks.

There are other amendments touching on the organisation of the IPOPHL itself, and also on the other aspects of intellectual property law. Some of the proposed amendments are subject to further modifications, according to the IPOPHL.

Hechanova

Editha R Hechanova


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

AI, cybersecurity and data practice group will provide clients with legal guidance around AI alongside a 'deep technical foundation’ in IP
Lawyers at Vondst and Biopatents say a ruling concerning the protected status of trade secrets could see the UPC flooded with requests to prevent access to confidential information
Sharad Vadehra of Kan & Krishme discusses why older IP firms still have an edge over up-and-coming boutiques and how the firm is using AI to provide quick and cost-effective service
Lawyers at Appleyard Lees share how they picked apart a plant breeder’s infringement claims concerning the ‘Tango’ mandarin
A further decision on long-arm status, and a new hire for Pentarc in Germany from Taylor Wessing were also among top developments
The US decision marks a rare grant of a request under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in a patent case
Stobbs has applied to strike out a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
With trademark volumes surging, trademark teams need to think beyond traditional clearance searches, towards a continuous, intelligence-led workflow, says Meghan Medeiros of Corsearch
Brazilian in-house counsel say law firms’ technology investments have not translated into tangible benefits, meaning tech use is a minor factor when selecting advisers
A lack of comfort among some salaried partners shows why law firms must actively foster inclusion, not merely focus on diversity mandates
Gift this article