Philippines: Supreme Court addresses the battle of the roasted pig

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

Cookies Settings

Philippines: Supreme Court addresses the battle of the roasted pig

Sponsored by

hechanova-400px.png
carolina-garcia-tavizon-gli8lcaifpa-unsplash-1.jpg

Editha R Hechanova of Hechanova & Co Inc explores a recent judgment in a two-decade long trademark infringement case between two prominent lechon retailers

No Filipino celebration is complete without the roasted pig or ‘lechon’. Some historians say that the Spaniards possibly introduced it when they came to the Philippines in the 16th century, since the word ‘lechon’ is Spanish for ‘pig’, and the dish resembled its cochinillo asado. 

In the case of Emzee Foods v Elarfoods (GR No. 220558, February 17 2021), the Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals found Emzee guilty of infringement and unfair competition, and further awarded Elarfoods damages and ordered Emzee to cease and desist from using the trademarks ‘Elarz Lechon’, ‘Elar Lechon’, ‘Pig Device’ and ‘On A Bamboo Tray’ on its products. 

The contending marks are shown below:

elarfoods

Emzee

According to the Supreme Court, applying the dominancy test, the word ‘Elar’ is the dominant feature of both marks and considering that they were used on the same ‘lechon’ products, the uncanny resemblance of the marks would even lead buyers to believe that Elarfoods and Emzee are the same entity. Moreover, one of Emzee’s incorporators and shareholders was a former trusted employee of Elarfoods, who had previously eagerly promoted the brand ‘Elar Lechon’, and this knowledge subsequently puts Emzee in bad faith and liable for damages. 

Emzee’s defense is that Elarfoods is not the owner of the mark but belongs to the estate of the spouses Lontoc, and that there is no valid assignment to the latter making the goodwill earned over the years as belonging to the said spouses’ estate. For this, the Supreme Court has given scant consideration, considering that a trademark like any incorporeal right may be disposed of not only by way of assignment. 

Besides, at the time the spouses incorporated Elarfoods, the marks were still unregistered and its assignment was perfected by mere consent without the need of a written contract. What is important according to the Supreme Court is that from the time of the incorporation of Elarfoods, it has exclusively used and appropriated the mark as its own. The fact that Elarfoods is the first entity to have registered the said marks in good faith makes it the true owner. 

The interesting question is why, despite the overwhelming evidence of ownership of Elarfoods of its marks, Emzee insists that Elarfoods is not the owner of the mark. It may be that despite finding Emzee liable for infringement and unfair competition neither the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) nor the Court of Appeals ordered that Emzee cease and desist from using the marks ‘Elarz Lechon’, ‘Elar Lechon’, ‘Pig Device’ and ‘On A Bamboo Tray’, which was a glaring omission noticed by the Supreme Court. 

The absence of this injunction has allowed Emzee to continue and profit from its infringing acts for at least the last 20 years. In this decision the Supreme Court restored the liability of Emzee for exemplary damages and ordered that it cease and desist from using the marks.

 

Editha R Hechanova

President, Hechanova & Co

E: editharh@hechanova.com.ph

 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Gift this article