Printed Circuit AssemblyStrain Gage Test GuidelineFull description
Printed Circuit AssemblyStrain Gage Test Guideline
Full description
law
IPC
IPC
Descrição completa
commreview2
criminal conspiracyFull description
Republic Act No. 8293 AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COE AN ESTABLISHING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY O!!ICE" PRO#IING !OR ITS ITS PO$E PO$ERS RS AN AN !UNC UNCTION TIONS" S" AN AN !OR OTHE OTHER R PURPOSES Be it e%&cte' b( t)e Se%&te &%' Hou*e o+ Rep, Rep,e* e*e% e%t& t&ti ti-e -e* * o+ t)e t)e P)il P)ilip ippi pi%e %e* * i% Co% Co%,e ,e** ** &**e/ble'00 PART I THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY O!!ICE Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines." Sect Sectio ion n 2. ecl eclar arat atio ion n of Stat State e Poli Policy cy. . - The The State reco!nies that an effecti#e intellectual and industrial property syste$ is #ital to the de#elo de#elop$e p$ent nt of do$est do$estic ic and creati creati#e #e acti#i acti#ity% ty% faci facili lita tate tes s tran transf sfer er of tech techno nolo lo!y !y% % attr attrac acts ts forei! forei!n n in#est in#est$en $ents% ts% and ensure ensures s $arket $arket access access for for our our prod produc ucts ts. . It shal shall l prot protec ect t and and secu secure re the e&clus e&clusi#e i#e ri!hts ri!hts of scient scientist ists% s% in#ent in#entors ors% % artists and other !ifted citiens to their intellectual property and creations% particularly when beneficial to the people% for such periods as pro#ided in this Act. The use of intellectual property bears a social function. To this end% the State shall pro$ote the diffus diffusion ion of knowle knowled!e d!e and infor$ infor$ati ation on for the pro$otion of national de#elop$ent and pro!ress and the co$$on !ood. It is also the policy of the State to strea$line ad$inistrati#e procedures of re!isterin! patents% trade$arks and copyri!ht% to liberalie the re!istration on the transfer of technolo!y% and to enhanc enhance e the enforc enforce$e e$ent nt of intell intellect ectual ual property ri!hts in the Philippines. 'n(
1 Pa ge
Section ). International Con#entions and *eciprocity. - Any person who is a national or who who is do$ic o$icil ile ed or has a real eal and and effe effect cti# i#e e industrial establish$ent in a country which is a part party y to any any con# con#en enti tion on% % trea treaty ty or a!re a!ree$ e$en ent t relatin! to intellectual property ri!hts or the repres repressio sion n of unfair unfair co$pet co$petiti ition% on% to which which the Philippines is also a party% or e&tends reciprocal ri!hts to nationals of the Philippines by law% shall be entitled to benefits to the e&tent necessary to !i#e effect to any pro#ision of such con#ention% treaty or reci recipr proc ocal al law% law% in addi additi tion on to the the ri!h ri!hts ts to whic which h any any owner wner of an intel ntelle lect ctua ual l prop proper erty ty ri!ht is otherwise entitled by this Act. 'n( A. Intellectual Property Property Rights
Section +. efinitions. +.1. The "intellectual property ri!hts" consists of,
ter$
a( Copyri!ht and *elated *i!hts b( Trade$arks and Ser#ice arks c( /eo!raphic Indications d( Industrial esi!ns e( Patents f( 0ayout 0ayout-e -esi! si!ns ns Circuits and !( Prot Protec ecti tion on T*IPS(.
of
'Topo! 'Topo!rap raphie hies( s(
ndi ndisc sclo lose sed d
of
Inte!r Inte!rate ated d
Info Infor$ r$at atio ion n
'n% 'n%
+.2. The ter$ "technolo!y transfer arran!e$ents" refers to contracts or a!ree$ents in#ol#in! the transfer of syste$atic knowled!e for the $anufacture of a product% the application of a proc proces ess% s% or rend render erin in! ! of a ser# ser#ic ice e incl includ udin in! ! $ana!e$ent contracts and the transfer% assi!n$ent or licensin! of all for$s of intellectual property ri!hts% includin!
2 Pa ge
Section ). International Con#entions and *eciprocity. - Any person who is a national or who who is do$ic o$icil ile ed or has a real eal and and effe effect cti# i#e e industrial establish$ent in a country which is a part party y to any any con# con#en enti tion on% % trea treaty ty or a!re a!ree$ e$en ent t relatin! to intellectual property ri!hts or the repres repressio sion n of unfair unfair co$pet co$petiti ition% on% to which which the Philippines is also a party% or e&tends reciprocal ri!hts to nationals of the Philippines by law% shall be entitled to benefits to the e&tent necessary to !i#e effect to any pro#ision of such con#ention% treaty or reci recipr proc ocal al law% law% in addi additi tion on to the the ri!h ri!hts ts to whic which h any any owner wner of an intel ntelle lect ctua ual l prop proper erty ty ri!ht is otherwise entitled by this Act. 'n( A. Intellectual Property Property Rights
Section +. efinitions. +.1. The "intellectual property ri!hts" consists of,
ter$
a( Copyri!ht and *elated *i!hts b( Trade$arks and Ser#ice arks c( /eo!raphic Indications d( Industrial esi!ns e( Patents f( 0ayout 0ayout-e -esi! si!ns ns Circuits and !( Prot Protec ecti tion on T*IPS(.
of
'Topo! 'Topo!rap raphie hies( s(
ndi ndisc sclo lose sed d
of
Inte!r Inte!rate ated d
Info Infor$ r$at atio ion n
'n% 'n%
+.2. The ter$ "technolo!y transfer arran!e$ents" refers to contracts or a!ree$ents in#ol#in! the transfer of syste$atic knowled!e for the $anufacture of a product% the application of a proc proces ess% s% or rend render erin in! ! of a ser# ser#ic ice e incl includ udin in! ! $ana!e$ent contracts and the transfer% assi!n$ent or licensin! of all for$s of intellectual property ri!hts% includin!
2 Pa ge
licens licensin! in! of co$put co$puter er softwa software re e&cept e&cept software de#eloped for $ass $arket.
co$put co$puter er
+.). The ter$ "ffice" Inte Intell llec ectu tual al Prop Proper erty ty ffi ffice ce Act.
to by
refers crea create ted d
the this this
+.+. The ter$ "IP /aette" refers to the !aette published by the ffice under this Act. 'n( MIGHTY CORPORATION and and LA CAMPANA A!RICA "# TA!ACO$ INC. vs. INC. vs. #. % &. GALLO 'IN#RY and TH# AN"R#(ON( AN"R#(ON( GRO)P$ INC.
In this petitio petition n for re#iew re#iew on certiorari certiorari under *ule *ule +3% petiti petitione oners rs i!hty i!hty Corpor Corporati ation on and 0a Ca$p Ca$pan ana a 4abr 4abric ica a de Taba Tabaco co% % Inc. Inc. '0a '0a Ca$p Ca$pan ana( a( seek seek to annu annul% l% re#e re#ers rse e and and set set asid aside, e, 'a( 'a( the the 5o#e$b 5o#e$ber er 13% 2661 2661 decisi decision on1718 of the Court of Appeals 'CA( in CA-/.*. C9 5o. :31;3 affir$in! the 5o#e$ber 2:% 1<<= decision%2728 as $odified by the >une 2+% 1<<< order%)7)8 of the *e!ional Tria Trial l Cour Court t of aka akati ti City City% % ?ran ?ranch ch 3; 'ak 'akat ati i *TC( in Ci#il Case 5o. <)-=36% which held petitioners liable for% and per$anently en@oined the$ fro$% co$$ittin! trade$ark infrin!e$ent and unfa unfair ir co$p co$pet etit itio ion% n% and and whic which h orde ordere red d the$ the$ to pay da$a!es to respondents . B >. /allo inery '/al '/allo lo ine inery ry( ( and and The The Andr Andres eson ons s /rou /roup% p% Inc. Inc. 'Andresons( 'b( the >uly 11% 2662 CA resolution denyin! their $otion for reconsideration+7+8 and 'c( the aforesaid akati *TC decision itself. I. The 4actual ?ack!round *espondent /allo inery is a forei!n corporation not doin! business in the Philippines but or!a or!ani nie ed d and and e&is e&isti tin! n! unde under r the the laws laws of the the 1 2 3 4
3 Pa ge
State of California% nited States of A$erica '.S.(% where all its wineries are located. /allo inery produces different kinds of wines and brandy products and sells the$ in $any countries under different re!istered trade$arks% includin! the /A00 and *5ST B >0I /A00 wine trade$arks. *espondent do$estic corporation% Andresons% has been /allo inerys e&clusi#e wine i$porter and distributor in the Philippines since 1<<1% sellin! these products in its own na$e and for its own account.3738 /allo inerys /A00 wine trade$ark was re!istered in the principal re!ister of the Philippine Patent ffice 'now Intellectual Property ffice( on 5o#e$ber 1:% 1<;1 under Certificate of *e!istration 5o. 1;621 which was renewed on 5o#e$ber 1:% 1<<1 for another 26 years.:7:8 /allo inery also applied for re!istration of its *5ST B >0I /A00 wine trade$ark on ctober 11% 1<<6 under Application Serial 5o. <61611-666;)3<<-P5 but the records do not disclose if it was e#er appro#ed by the irector of Patents.;7;8 n the other hand% petitioners i!hty Corporation and 0a Ca$pana and their sister co$pany% Tobacco Industries of the Philippines 'Tobacco Industries(% are en!a!ed in the culti#ation% $anufacture% distribution and sale of tobacco products for which they ha#e been usin! the /A00 ci!arette trade$ark since 1<;). = 7=8 The ?ureau of Internal *e#enue '?I*( appro#ed Tobacco Industries use of /A00 166s ci!arette $ark on Septe$ber 1+% 1<;) and /A00 filter ci!arette $ark on arch 2:% 1<;:% both for the $anufacture and sale of its ci!arette products. 5 6 7 8
Pa ge
In 1<;:% Tobacco Industries filed its $anufacturers sworn state$ent as basis for ?I*s collection of specific ta& on /A00 ci!arettes.< 7<8 n 4ebruary 3% 1<;+% Tobacco Industries applied for% but e#entually did not pursue% the re!istration of the /A00 ci!arette trade$ark in the principal re!ister of the then Philippine Patent ffice.167168 In ay 1<=+% Tobacco Industries assi!ned the /A00 ci!arette trade$ark to 0a Ca$pana which% on >uly 1:% 1<=3% applied for trade$ark re!istration in the Philippine Patent ffice.11 7118 n >uly 1;% 1<=3% the 5ational 0ibrary issued Certificate of Copyri!ht *e!istration 5o. 3=)+ for 0a Ca$panas lifeti$e copyri!ht clai$ o#er /A00 ci!arette labels.127128 SubseDuently% 0a Ca$pana authoried i!hty Corporation to $anufacture and sell ci!arettes bearin! the /A00 trade$ark.1)71)8 ?I* appro#ed i!hty Corporations use of /A00 166s ci!arette brand% under licensin! a!ree$ent with Tobacco Industries% on ay 1=% 1<==% and /A00 SPCIA0 5TE0 166s ci!arette brand on April )% 1<=<.1+ 71+8 Petitioners clai$ that /A00 ci!arettes ha#e been sold in the Philippines since 1<;)% initially by Tobacco Industries% then by 0a Ca$pana and finally by i!hty Corporation.137138
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
4 Pa ge
n the other hand% althou!h the /A00 wine trade$ark was re!istered in the Philippines in 1<;1% respondents clai$ that they first introduced and sold the /A00 and *5ST B >0I /A00 wines in the Philippines circa 1<;+ within the then .S. $ilitary facilities only. ?y 1<;<% they had e&panded their Philippine $arket throu!h authoried distributors and independent outlets.1:71:8 *espondents clai$ that they first learned about the e&istence of /A00 ci!arettes in the latter part of 1<<2 when an Andresons e$ployee saw such ci!arettes on display with /A00 wines in a a#ao super$arket wine cellar section.1;71;8 4orthwith% respondents sent a de$and letter to petitioners askin! the$ to stop usin! the /A00 trade$ark% to no a#ail. II. The 0e!al ispute n arch 12% 1<<)% respondents sued petitioners in the akati *TC for trade$ark and tradena$e infrin!e$ent and unfair co$petition% with a prayer for da$a!es and preli$inary in@unction. *espondents char!ed petitioners with #iolatin! Article :bis of the Paris Con#ention for the Protection of Industrial Property 'Paris Con#ention(1=71=8 and *A 1:: 'Trade$ark 0aw(%1< 71<8 specifically% Sections 22 and 2) 'for trade$ark infrin!e$ent(%267268 2< and )6217218 'for unfair co$petition and false desi!nation of ori!in( and ); 'for tradena$e infrin!e$ent(.22 7228 They clai$ed that petitioners adopted the 16 17 18 19 20 21
5 Pa ge
/A00 trade$ark to ride on /allo inerys /A00 and *5ST B >0I /A00 trade$arks established reputation and popularity% thus causin! confusion% deception and $istake on the part of the purchasin! public who had always associated /A00 and *5ST B >0I /A00 trade$arks with /allo inerys wines. *espondents prayed for the issuance of a writ of preli$inary in@unction and ex parte restrainin! order% plus P2 $illion as actual and co$pensatory da$a!es% at least P366%666 as e&e$plary and $oral da$a!es% and at least P366%666 as attorneys fees and liti!ation e&penses.2)72)8 In their answer% petitioners alle!ed% a$on! other affir$ati#e defenses% that, petitioners /A00 ci!arettes and /allo inerys wines were totally unrelated products /allo inerys /A00 trade$ark re!istration certificate co#ered wines only% not ci!arettes /A00 ci!arettes and /A00 wines were sold throu!h different channels of trade /A00 ci!arettes% sold at P+.:6 for /A00 filters and P) for /A00 $enthols% were low-cost ite$s co$pared to /allo inerys hi!h-priced lu&ury wines which cost between P<= to P2+2.36 the tar!et $arket of /allo inerys wines was the $iddle or hi!h-inco$e bracket with at least P16%666 $onthly inco$e while /A00 ci!arette buyers were far$ers% fisher$en% laborers and other low-inco$e workers the do$inant feature of the /A00 ci!arette $ark was the rooster de#ice with the $anufacturers na$e clearly indicated as I/ETF C*P*ATI5 while% in the case of /allo inerys wines% it was the full na$es of the founders-owners *5ST B >0I /A00 or @ust their surna$e /A00 by their inaction and conduct% respondents were !uilty of laches and estoppel and petitioners acted with honesty% @ustice and !ood faith in the e&ercise of their ri!ht to $anufacture and sell /A00 ci!arettes. In an akati 22 23
6 Pa ge
order *TC
dated April 21% 1<<)%2+72+8 the denied% for lack of $erit%
respondents prayer for the issuance of a writ of preli$inary in@unction%237238 holdin! that respondents /A00 trade$ark re!istration certificate co#ered wines only% that respondents wines and petitioners ci!arettes were not related !oods and respondents failed to pro#e $aterial da$a!e or !reat irreparable in@ury as reDuired by Section 3% *ule 3= of the *ules of Court.2:72:8 n Au!ust 1<% 1<<)% the akati *TC denied% for lack of $erit% respondents $otion for reconsideration. The court reiterated that respondents wines and petitioners ci!arettes were not related !oods since the likelihood of deception and confusion on the part of the consu$in! public was #ery re$ote. The trial court e$phasied that it could not rely on forei!n rulin!s cited by respondents because the7se8 cases were decided by forei!n courts on the basis of unknown facts peculiar to each case or upon factual surroundin!s which $ay e&ist only within their @urisdiction. oreo#er% there 7was8 no showin! that 7these cases had8 been tested or found applicable in our @urisdiction.2; 72;8 n 4ebruary 26% 1<<3% the CA likewise dis$issed respondents petition for re#iew on certiorari% docketed as CA-/.*. 5o. )2:2:% thereby affir$in! the akati *TCs denial of the application for issuance of a writ of preli$inary in@unction a!ainst petitioners.2=72=8 After trial on the $erits% howe#er% the akati *TC% on 5o#e$ber 2:% 1<<=% held petitioners liable for% and per$anently en@oined the$ fro$% co$$ittin! trade$ark infrin!e$ent and unfair co$petition with respect to the /A00 trade$ark, 24 25 26 27 28
8 Pa ge
E*4*% @ud!$ent is rendered in fa#or of the plaintiff 'sic( and a!ainst the defendant 'sic(% to wit, a. per$anently restrainin! and en@oinin! defendants% their distributors% trade outlets% and all persons actin! for the$ or under their instructions% fro$ 'i( usin! B >s re!istered trade$ark /A00 or any other reproduction% counterfeit% copy or colorable i$itation of said trade$ark% either sin!ly or in con@unction with other words% desi!ns or e$ble$s and other acts of si$ilar nature% and 'ii( co$$ittin! other acts of unfair co$petition a!ainst plaintiffs by $anufacturin! and sellin! their ci!arettes in the do$estic or e&port $arkets under the /A00 trade$ark. b. orderin! defendants to pay plaintiffs 'i( actual and co$pensatory da$a!es for the in@ury and pre@udice and i$pair$ent of plaintiffs business and !oodwill as a result of the acts and conduct pleaded as basis for this suit% in an a$ount eDual to 16G of 4*T5 I00I5 T E5* TEI*TF 4I9 TESA5 PSS 'PEP1+%2)3%666.66( fro$ the filin! of the co$plaint until fully paid 'ii( e&e$plary PEP166%666.66
da$a!es
in
the
a$ount
of
'iii( attorneys fees and e&penses of liti!ation in the a$ount of PEP1%1)6%6:=.<1 'i#( the cost of suit. S **.2<72<8 n >une 2+% 1<<<% the akati *TC !ranted respondents $otion for partial reconsideration and increased the award of actual and co$pensatory da$a!es to 16G of P1<<%2<6%666 or P1<%<2<%666.)67)68
29 30
9 Pa ge
n appeal% the CA affir$ed the decision and subseDuently denied $otion for reconsideration.
akati *TC petitioners
III. The Issues Petitioners now seek relief fro$ this Court contendin! that the CA did not follow pre#ailin! laws and @urisprudence when it held that, 7a8 *A =2<) 'Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines 7IP Code8( was applicable in this case 7b8 /A00 ci!arettes and /A00 wines were identical% si$ilar or related !oods for the reason alone that they were purportedly for$s of #ice 7c8 both !oods passed throu!h the sa$e channels of trade and 7d8 petitioners were liable for trade$ark infrin!e$ent% unfair co$petition and da$a!es.)17)18 *espondents% on the other hand% assert that this petition which in#okes *ule +3 does not in#ol#e pure Duestions of law% and hence% $ust be dis$issed outri!ht. I9. iscussion TE HCPTI5A0 CI*CSTA5CS I5 TEIS CAS ?0I/ TE C*T T *9I TE CAS 4ACTA0 4I5I5/S As a !eneral rule% a petition for re#iew on certiorari under *ule +3 $ust raise only )2 Duestions of law 7)28 'that is% the doubt pertains to the application and interpretation of law to a certain set of facts( and not Duestions of fact 'where the doubt concerns the truth or falsehood of alle!ed facts(%))7))8 otherwise% the petition will be denied. e are not a trier of facts and the Court of Appeals 31 32 33
17 P a g e
factual findin!s us.)+7)+8
are
!enerally
conclusi#e
upon
This case in#ol#es Duestions of fact which are directly related and intertwined with Duestions of law. The resolution of the factual issues concernin! the !oods si$ilarity% identity% relation% channels of trade% and acts of trade$ark infrin!e$ent and unfair co$petition is !reatly dependent on the interpretation of applicable laws. The contro#ersy here is not si$ply the identity or si$ilarity of both parties trade$arks but whether or not infrin!e$ent or unfair co$petition was co$$itted% a conclusion based on statutory interpretation. 4urther$ore% one or $ore of the followin! e&ceptional circu$stances obli!e us to re#iew the e#idence on record,)37)38 '1( the conclusion is !rounded entirely on speculation% sur$ises% and con@ectures '2( the inference of the Court of Appeals fro$ its findin!s of fact is $anifestly $istaken% absurd and i$possible ')( there is !ra#e abuse of discretion '+( the @ud!$ent is $isapprehension of facts
based
on
a
'3( the appellate court% in $akin! its findin!s% went beyond the issues of the case% and the sa$e are contrary to the ad$issions of both the appellant and the appellee ':( the findin!s are without citation of specific e#idence on which they are based ';( the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners $ain and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents and '=( the findin!s of fact of the Court of Appeals are pre$ised on the absence of e#idence and are contradicted 7by the 34 35
11 P a g e
e#idence8 on record.):7):8 In this li!ht% after thorou!hly e&a$inin! the e#idence on record% wei!hin!% analyin! and balancin! all factors to deter$ine whether trade$ark infrin!e$ent andJor unfair co$petition has been co$$itted% we conclude that both the Court of Appeals and the trial court #eered away fro$ the law and well-settled @urisprudence. Thus% we !i#e due course to the petition. TE T*AA*K 0A A5 TE PA*IS C595TI5 A* TE APP0ICA?0 0AS% 5T TE I5T00CTA0 P*P*TF C e note that respondents sued petitioners on arch 12% 1<<) for trade$ark infrin!e$ent and unfair co$petition co$$itted durin! the effecti#ity of the Paris Con#ention and the Trade$ark 0aw. Fet% in the akati *TC decision of 5o#e$ber 2:% 1<<=% petitioners were held liable not only under the aforesaid !o#ernin! laws but also under the IP Code which took effect only on >anuary 1% 1<<=%);7);8 or about fi#e years after the filin! of the co$plaint, efendants unauthoried use of the /A00 trade$ark constitutes trade$ark infrin!e$ent pursuant to Section 22 of *epublic Act 5o. 1::% (ection *++ o, the IP Code$ Article :bis of the Paris Con#ention% and Article 1: '1( of the T*IPS A!ree$ent as it causes confusion% deception and $istake on the part of the purchasin! public.)=7)=8 '$phasis and underscorin! supplied( The CA apparently did not notice the error and affir$ed the akati *TC decision, In the li!ht of its findin! that appellants use of the /A00 trade$ark on its ci!arettes is 36 37 38
12 P a g e
likely to create confusion with the /A00 trade$ark on wines pre#iously re!istered and used in the Philippines by appellee B > /allo inery% the trial court thus did not err in holding that appellants acts not only -iolated the pro#isions of the our trade$ark laws '*.A. 5o. 1:: and R.A. Nos. sic / 0123/ but also bis Article : of the Paris Con#ention.)<7)<8 '$phasis and underscorin! supplied( e therefore hold that the courts a quo erred in retroacti#ely applyin! the IP Code in this case. It is a funda$ental principle that the #alidity and obli!atory force of a law proceed fro$ the fact that it has first been pro$ul!ated. A law that is not yet effecti#e cannot be considered as conclusi#ely known by the populace. To $ake a law bindin! e#en before it takes effect $ay lead to the arbitrary e&ercise of the le!islati#e power.+67+68 Nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis. A new state of the law ou!ht to affect the future% not the past. Any doubt $ust !enerally be resol#ed a!ainst the retroacti#e operation of laws% whether these are ori!inal enact$ents% +1 a$end$ents or repeals. 7+18 There are only a few instances when laws $ay be !i#en retroacti#e effect%+27+28 none of which is present in this case. The IP Code% repealin! the Trade$ark 0aw%+)7+)8 was appro#ed on >une :% 1<<;. Section 2+1 thereof e&pressly decreed that it was to take effect only on >anuary 1% 1<<=% without any pro#ision for retroacti#e application. Thus% the akati *TC and the CA should ha#e li$ited the consideration of the present case within the para$eters of the Trade$ark 0aw and the Paris 39 40 41 42 43
13 P a g e
Con#ention% the laws in force at the ti$e of the filin! of the co$plaint. ISTI5CTI5S ?T5 T*AA*K I54*I5/5T A5 54AI* CPTITI5 Althou!h the laws on trade$ark infrin!e$ent and unfair co$petition ha#e a co$$on conception at their root% that is% a person shall not be per$itted to $isrepresent his !oods or his business as the !oods or business of another% the law on unfair co$petition is broader and $ore inclusi#e than the law on trade$ark infrin!e$ent. The latter is $ore li$ited but it reco!nies a $ore e&clusi#e ri!ht deri#ed fro$ the trade$ark adoption and re!istration by the person whose !oods or business is first associated with it. The law on trade$arks is thus a specialied sub@ect distinct fro$ the law on unfair co$petition% althou!h the two sub@ects are entwined with each other and are dealt with to!ether in the Trade$ark 0aw 'now% both are co#ered by the IP Code(. Eence% e#en if one fails to establish his e&clusi#e property ri!ht to a trade$ark% he $ay still obtain relief on the !round of his co$petitors unfairness or fraud. Conduct constitutes unfair co$petition if the effect is to pass off on the public the !oods of one $an as the !oods of another. It is not necessary that any particular $eans should be used to this end.++7++8 In Del Monte Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,45 7+38 we distin!uished trade$ark infrin!e$ent fro$ unfair co$petition, '1(Infrin!e$ent of trade$ark is the unauthoried use of a trade$ark% whereas unfair co$petition is the passin! off of ones !oods as those of another. '2(
44 45
1 P a g e
In infrin!e$ent of trade$ark fraudulent intent is unnecessary% whereas in
unfair co$petition fraudulent intent is essential. ')(
In infrin!e$ent of trade$ark the prior re!istration of the trade$ark is a prereDuisite to the action% whereas in unfair co$petition re!istration is not necessary.
Pertinent Pro#isions on Trade$ark Infrin!e$ent under the Paris Con#ention and the Trade$ark 0aw Article :bis of the Paris Con#ention%+:7+:8 an international a!ree$ent bindin! on the Philippines and the nited States '/allo inerys country of do$icile and ori!in( prohibits the 7re!istration8 or use of a trade$ark which constitutes a reproduction% i$itation or translation% liable to create confusion% of a $ark considered by the co$petent authority of the country of re!istration or use to be well !nown in that country as bein! already the $ark of a person entitled to the benefits of the 7Paris8 Con#ention and used for identical or similar !oods. 7This rule also applies8 when the essential part of the $ark constitutes a reproduction of any such well-known $ark or an i$itation liable to create confusion therewith. There is no ti$e li$it for seekin! the prohibition of the use of $arks used in bad faith.+;7+;8 Thus% under Article :bis of the Paris Con#ention% the followin! are the ele$ents of trade$ark infrin!e$ent, 'a(re!istration or use by another person of a trade$ark which is a reproduction% i$itation or translation liable to create confusion% 'b( of a $ark considered by the co$petent authority of the country of re!istration or use+=7+=8 to be well!nown in that country 46 47 48
