Proposed amendments to rules on administrative complaints over IP violations in the Philippines

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Proposed amendments to rules on administrative complaints over IP violations in the Philippines

Sponsored by

hechanova-400px.png
complaint-6161776_1920.png

Editha Hechanova of Hechanova Group provides a summary of a series of changes proposed by the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and notes that one provision may lead to different interpretations

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) issued several circulars during the COVID pandemic, and In line with its goal to transform itself into a fully digitalised agency, streamline administrative procedures, and enhance the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the country, on November 10 2023, it requested stakeholders to comment on its proposed amendments to the Rules and Regulations on Administrative Complaints for Violation of Law Involving Intellectual Property Rights. The salient points of its proposal are as follows:

  • Complaint – the filing of a verified complaint and succeeding pleadings, motions, and other submissions shall be by email to blareceiving@ipophil.gov.ph, and shall be deemed filed as of the date the electronic transmission was received by the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the IPOPHL. The complainant would still have to submit a hard copy of the complaint, pleadings, motions, and other submissions with the BLA personally, by registered mail, or by private courier within five days, and the copy filed must be an exact copy of the electronic copy of the complaint filed with the BLA.

  • Answer – the summons shall require the respondent to answer the complaint within ten days from its receipt. The filing of the answer follows the same procedure as in filing the complaint.

  • Videoconferencing – the hearing may be conducted via videoconference, upon agreement of the parties, who must jointly request it within seven days before the scheduled hearing.

  • Applicability of the Rules of Court and Supreme Court issuances – in the absence of any applicable rules in the Rules and Regulations on Administrative Complaints for Violation of Law Involving Intellectual Property Rights, the Rules of Court and the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases may be applied in a suppletory manner.

  • Decisions – the case is deemed submitted for resolution after the evidence is formally offered, whether or not the parties submit a final pleading such as a memorandum. The BLA shall decide the case within 30 calendar days from submission. Decisions and final orders shall be served personally, or by registered mail, private courier, or by publication, as the case may require. Service by electronic means and facsimile shall be made if the party concerned consents to such modes of service.

Several provisions from the existing rules have been deleted from the proposed revised guidelines but the covered acts are still part of the prosecution process. The IPOPHL may have intended that the express inclusion of the suppletory applicability of the Rules of Court and issuances of the Supreme Court would fill in the gaps, but this may also lead to different interpretations, since administrative bodies are not strictly bound by technical rules of procedure.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article