The Philippines: Proposed amendments to the IP Code
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 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

As Australia’s Qantm IP leans towards being acquired by a private equity company, sources discuss what it could mean for IP firms
Law firms that are conscious of their role in society are more likely to win work, according to a survey of over 23,000 in-house professionals
Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac, managing partner of Vision & Associates, discusses opportunities created by the US-China rift as well as profitability issues facing IP practices
Douglas Leite and two of his colleagues were intrigued by Bhering Advogados’s mission to grow its patent litigation practice
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Counsel explain how pricing flexibility, patent agents and being business partners can help them maintain profitable patent prosecution practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Speakers at an INTA event weighed in on why firms should create AI use policies and how they stay on top of the latest developments
The England and Wales Court of Appeal backed Lidl in its trademark dispute with Tesco, but we should pay more attention to how we rule on first-instance decisions
Richard Kempner, partner at Haseltine Lake Kempner, discusses the ‘remarkable’ comments from judges, despite the court finding against his client Tesco on the bulk of issues
Gift this article