MERCANTILE LAW
Clarice Questin DRAFT NO. 2
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION OF TE PILIPPINES v. ON. PAQUITO OCOA! IN IS CAPACITY AS E"ECUTI#E SECRETARY! ET AL. $.R. N%. 2&'(&)! *+ ,ul- 2&*(! EN ANC /ersa0in! J.)
DOCTRINE OF TE CASE The registration of trademarks and copyrights have been the subject of executive agreemen agreements ts entered entered into into withou withoutt the concurre concurrence nce of the Senate Senate.. Some Some execut executive ive agreements have been concluded in conformity with the policies declared in the acts of Congress with respect to the general subject matter.
FACTS
The Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks (Madrid System), which which is the centra centraliz lized ed system system provid providin ing g a one-s one-stop top solt soltion ion for regist registeri ering ng and managing marks worldwide, allows the trademark owner to file one application in one langage, and to pay one set of fees to protect his mark in the territories of p to !" mem#er-states$ The Madrid System is governed #y the Madrid %greement, conclded in &'!& &'!&,, and and the the Madrid Madrid roto rotoco col, l, concl concld ded ed in &!'!$ &!'!$ The The Madrid Madrid rot rotoco ocoll has has two o#ectives, namely* (&) to facilitate secring protection for marks+ and () to make the management of the registered marks easier in different contries$ In ., ., the Intellec Intellectal tal roper roperty ty /ffice /ffice of the hilippi hilippines nes (I/01 (I/01), ), #egan #egan cons conside iderin ring g the cont contry2 ry2s s acces accessi sion on to the the Madrid Madrid roto rotocol col$$ %fter %fter a campa campaign ign for information dissemination, and a series of consltations with stakeholders, I/01
ltimately arrived at the conclsion that accession wold #enefit the contry and help raise the level of competitiveness for 3ilipino #rands$ 0ence, it recommended to the 4epartment of 3oreign %ffairs (43%) that the hilippines shold accede to the Madrid rotocol$ %fter its own review, the 43% endorsed to the resident the contry2s accession to the Madrid rotocol$ The 43% determined that the Madrid rotocol was an e5ective agreement$ /n March ", &, resident 6enigno 7$ %8ino III ratified the Madrid rotocol throgh an instrment of accession, which was deposited with the 4irector 9eneral of the :orld Intellectal roperty /rganization (:I/) on %pril ;, &$ The Madrid rotocol entered into force in the hilippines on <ly ;, &$ Ths, the Intellectal roperty %ssociation of the hilippines (I%) commenced this special civil action for certiorari and prohi#ition to challenge the validity of the resident2s accession to the Madrid rotocol withot the concrrence of the Senate$ %ccording to the I%, the Madrid rotocol is a treaty, not an e5ective agreement+ hence, respondent 43% Secretary %l#ert 4el Rosario acted with grave a#se of discretion in determining the Madrid rotocol as an e5ective agreement$ %lso, the I% has arged that the implementation of the Madrid rotocol in the hilippines+ specifically the processing of foreign trademark applications, conflicts with the Intellectal roperty 7ode of the hilippines$
ISSUE
Is the Madrid rotocol nconstittional for lack of concrrence #y the Senate=
RULIN$
>/$ The 7ort finds and declares that the resident?s ratification is valid and constittional #ecase the Madrid rotocol, #eing an e5ective agreement as determined #y the 4epartment of 3oreign %ffairs, does not re8ire the concrrence of the Senate$ @nder prevailing risprdence, the registration of trademarks and copyrights have #een the s#ect of e5ective agreements entered into withot the concrrence of the Senate$ Some e5ective agreements have #een conclded in conformity with the policies declared in the acts of 7ongress with respect to the general s#ect matter$ %ccordingly, 43% Secretary 4el Rosario?s determination and treatment of the Madrid rotocol as an e5ective agreement+ #eing in apparent contemplation of the e5press state policies on intellectal property as well as within his power nder A5ective /rder >o$ .;!, are pheld$ The 7ort o#served that there are no hard and fast rles on the propriety of entering into a treaty or an e5ective agreement on a given s#ect as an instrment of international relations$ The primary consideration in the choice of the form of agreement is the parties? intent and desire to craft their international agreement in the form they so wish to frther their respective interests$ The matter of form takes a #ack seat when it comes to effectiveness and #inding effect of the enforcement of a treaty or an e5ective agreement+ inasmch as all the parties+ regardless of the form, #ecome o#liged to comply conforma#ly with the time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda $ The principle #inds the parties to perform in good faith their parts in the agreements$
