IPC Notes-Final Exam

2.1

Definitions
Sec. 121. Definitions. - As used in Part III, the following terms have the following meanings:
121.1. "Mark" means any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or
services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of
goods; (Sec. 38, R. A. No. 166a)
121.2. "Collective mark" means any visible sign designated as such in the application for
registration and capable of distinguishing the origin or any other common characteristic,
including the quality of goods or services of different enterprises which use the sign under the
control of the registered owner of the collective mark; (Sec. 40, R. A. No. 166a)
121.3. "Trade name" means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an
enterprise; (Sec. 38, R. A. No. 166a)
121.4. "Bureau" means the Bureau of Trademarks;
121.5. "Director" means the Director of Trademarks;
121.6. "Regulations" means the Rules of Practice in Trademarks and Service Marks formulated
by the Director of Trademarks and approved by the Director General; and
121.7. "Examiner" means the trademark examiner. (Sec. 38, R. A. No. 166a)

2.2

Rights, Sec. 122

How Marks are Acquired. - The rights in a mark shall be acquired through registration
made validly in accordance with the provisions of this law. (Sec. 2-A, R. A. No. 166a)

2.3
123.1.
a.

b.
c.

d.

e.

f.

Registration
1.3.1 Disqualifications Sec. 123 (memorize)
A mark cannot be registered if it:
Consists of immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter, or matter which may disparage or falsely
suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or
bring them into contempt or disrepute;
Consists of the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the Philippines or any of its political
subdivisions, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof;
Consists of a name, portrait or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his
written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the Philippines,
during the life of his widow, if any, except by written consent of the widow;
Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a mark with an earlier
filing or priority date, in respect of:
a. The same goods or services, or
b. Closely related goods or services, or
c. If it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion;
Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation of a mark which is
considered by the competent authority of the Philippines to be well-known internationally and in
the Philippines, whether or not it is registered here, as being already the mark of a person other
than the applicant for registration, and used for identical or similar goods or services:
Provided, That in determining whether a mark is well-known, account shall be taken of the
knowledge of the relevant sector of the public, rather than of the public at large, including
knowledge in the Philippines which has been obtained as a result of the promotion of the mark;
Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation of a mark considered wellknown in accordance with the preceding paragraph, which is registered in the Philippines with

g.
h.
i.
j.

k.
l.
m.

respect to goods or services which are not similar to those with respect to which registration is
applied for:Provided, That use of the mark in relation to those goods or services would indicate
a connection between those goods or services, and the owner of the registered mark: Provided
further, That the interests of the owner of the registered mark are likely to be damaged by such
use;
Is likely to mislead the public, particularly as to the nature, quality, characteristics or
geographical origin of the goods or services;
Consists exclusively of signs that are generic for the goods or services that they seek to
identify;
Consists exclusively of signs or of indications that have become customary or usual to designate
the goods or services in everyday language or in bona fide and established trade practice;
Consists exclusively of signs or of indications that may serve in trade to designate the kind,
quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, time or production of the goods
or rendering of the services, or other characteristics of the goods or services;
Consists of shapes that may be necessitated by technical factors or by the nature of the goods
themselves or factors that affect their intrinsic value;
Consists of color alone, unless defined by a given form; or
Is contrary to public order or morality.

123.2. As regards signs or devices mentioned in paragraphs (j), (k), and (l), nothing shall prevent the
registration of any such sign or device which has become distinctive in relation to the goods for which
registration is requested as a result of the use that have been made of it in commerce in the
Philippines. The Office may accept as prima facie evidence that the mark has become distinctive, as
used in connection with the applicants goods or services in commerce, proof of substantially exclusive
and continuous use thereof by the applicant in commerce in the Philippines for five (5) years before the
date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made.
123.3. The nature of the goods to which the mark is applied will not constitute an obstacle to
registration. (Sec. 4, R. A. No. 166a)
a. Qualitex v. Jacobson, 514 US 159
There is no objection to the use of color alone as a trademark, when that color has
attained a secondary meaning and therefore identifies and distinguishes a particular
brand
The language of the Act and the basic underlying principles of trademark law seem to include
color in the realm of what can qualify as a trademark.
A color is also capable of satisfying the requirement that a person use or intend to use the mark
to identify and distinguish the goods. Over time, customers may come to treat a particular color
as signifying a brand to the extent that it develops a secondary meaning.
There is no objection to the use of color alone as a trademark, when that color has attained a
secondary meaning and therefore identifies and distinguishes a particular brand. It is the sourcedistinguishing ability of a mark, and not its status as a color, that permits it to provide a financial
gain to a producer and to provide a distinguishing feature for customers.
b. Sambar vs. Levis Strauss, G.R. No. 132604, March 6, 2002
The backpocket design of Europress jeans, a double arc intersecting in the middle was the same
as Levis mark, also a double arc intersecting at the center. Although the trial court found
differences in the two designs, these differences were not noticeable. Further, private
respondents said, infringement of trademark did not require exact similarity. Colorable
imitation enough to cause confusion among the public, was sufficient for a trademark
to be infringed.
Private respondents explained that in a market research they conducted with 600 respondents,
the result showed that the public was confused by Europress trademark vis the Levis
trademark.

It must be stressed that it was immaterial whether or not petitioner was connected with
CVSGIC.
What is relevant is that petitioner had a copyright over the design and that he allowed the use
of the same by CVSGIC
c. Park N Fly vs. Dollar Park & Fly, 469 US 189
Park and fly" is a clear and concise description of a characteristic or ingredient of the service
offered--the customer parks his car and flies from the airport. We conclude that Park 'N Fly's
mark used in the context of airport parking is, at best, a merely descriptive mark.
Park 'N Fly has made no claim that its mark has acquired a secondary meaning as contemplated
by federal trademark law. Thus, Park 'N Fly's mark would not be entitled to continued
registration but for its incontestable status, and its federal registration is of no import. Since
Park 'N Fly has asserted no other basis for injunctive relief, we conclude that it is not entitled to
have Dollar enjoined from using the name "park and fly." 4
The district court's refusal to invalidate Park 'N Fly's marks is affirmed. The district court's
injunction against Dollar is reversed.
1. A generic (or common descriptive) mark is one that refers, or has come to be understood as
referring, to the genus of which the particular product or service is a species;
A generic mark cannot become a registrable trademark under any circumstances,
2. Descriptive mark specifically describes a characteristic or ingredient of an article or service;
It can become a registrable trademark by acquiring a secondary meaning
3. Suggestive mark suggests rather than describes an ingredient, quality, or characteristic
requiring imagination, thought, and perception to determine the nature of the goods;
Registrable without regard to secondary meaning
4. arbitrary or fanciful mark is usually a word or words invented solely for use as a trademark.
Registrable without regard to secondary meaning
Surgicenters, supra, 601 F.2d at 1014-15.

"If buyers take the word to refer only to a particular producer's goods or services, it is not
generic.
But if the word is identified with all such goods or services, regardless of their suppliers, it is
generic."
trademark is valid only if 'the primary significance of the term in the minds of the
consuming public is not the product but the producer.,

d. Coffee Partners vs. San Francisco Coffee, G.R. No. 169504, March 3, 2010
Registration of a trademark before the IPO is no longer a requirement to file an
action for infringement as provided in Section 165.2 of RA 8293. All that is required is
that the trade name is previously used in trade or commerce in the Philippines. There
is no showing that respondent abandoned the use of its trade name as it continues to embark to
conduct research on retailing coffee, import and sell coffee machines as among the services for
which the use of the business name has been registered.
The court also laid down two tests to determine similarity and likelihood of confusion.
The dominancy test focuses on similarity of the prevalent features of the
trademarks that
could
cause
deception
and
confusion
that
constitutes
infringement. Exact duplication or imitation is not required. The question is whether the use of
the marks involved is likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or to deceive
consumers.
The holistic test entails a consideration of the entirety of the marks as applied to the
products, including the labels and packaging, in determining confusing similarity.15
The discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the predominant words but also on
the other features appearing on both marks in order that the observer may draw his conclusion
whether one is confusingly similar to the other. Applying either the dominancy test or the
holistic test, petitioners "SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE" trademark is a clear infringement of
respondents "SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE & ROASTERY, INC." trade name. The descriptive words
"SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE" are precisely the dominant features of respondents trade name. And
because both are involved in coffee business there is always the high chance that the public will

get confused of the source of the coffee sold by the petitioner.Respondent has acquired an
exclusive right to the use of the trade name "SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE & ROASTERY, INC." since
the registration of the business name with the DTI in 1995.

1.3.2

Requirements Sec. 124

Sec. 124. Requirements of Application. 124.1. The application for the registration of the mark shall be in Filipino or in English and shall contain
the following:
a. A request for registration;
b. The name and address of the applicant;
c. The name of a State of which the applicant is a national or where he has domicile; and the
name of a State in which the applicant has a real and effective industrial or commercial
establishment, if any;
d. Where the applicant is a juridical entity, the law under which it is organized and existing;
e. The appointment of an agent or representative, if the applicant is not domiciled in the
Philippines;
f. Where the applicant claims the priority of an earlier application, an indication of:
a. The name of the State with whose national office the earlier application was filed or it
filed with an office other than a national office, the name of that office,
b. The date on which the earlier application was filed, and
c. Where available, the application number of the earlier application;
g. Where the applicant claims color as a distinctive feature of the mark, a statement to that effect
as well as the name or names of the color or colors claimed and an indication, in respect of each
color, of the principal parts of the mark which are in that color;
h. Where the mark is a three-dimensional mark, a statement to that effect;
i. One or more reproductions of the mark, as prescribed in the Regulations;
j. A transliteration or translation of the mark or of some parts of the mark, as prescribed in the
Regulations;
k. The names of the goods or services for which the registration is sought, grouped according to
the classes of the Nice Classification, together with the number of the class of the said
Classification to which each group of goods or services belongs; and
l. A signature by, or other self-identification of, the applicant or his representative.
124.2. The applicant or the registrant shall file a declaration of actual use of the mark with evidence to
that effect, as prescribed by the Regulations within three (3) years from the filing date of the
application. Otherwise, the application shall be refused or the mark shall be removed from the Register
by the Director.
124.3. One (1) application may relate to several goods and/or services, whether they belong to one (1)
class or to several classes of the Nice Classification.
124.4. If during the examination of the application, the Office finds factual basis to reasonably doubt
the veracity of any indication or element in the application, it may require the applicant to submit
sufficient evidence to remove the doubt. (Sec. 5, R. A. No. 166a)
Zatarin's Inc. vs. Oak Grove Smokehouse 698 F.2d 786
1.3.3 Disclaimers Sec. 126
Sec. 126. Disclaimers.- The Office may allow or require the applicant to disclaim an
unregistrable component of an otherwise registrable mark but such disclaimer shall not
prejudice or affect the applicants or owners rights then existing or thereafter arising in the
disclaimed matter, nor such shall disclaimer prejudice or affect the applicants or owners right
on another application of later date if the disclaimed matter became distinctive of the applicants
or owners goods, business or services. (Sec. 13, R. A. No. 166

1.3.4 Filing Date Sec. 127

127.1. Requirements. - The filing date of an application shall be the date on which the Office
received the following indications and elements in English or Filipino:
a) An express or implicit indication that the registration of a mark is sought;
b) The identity of the applicant;
c) Indications sufficient to contact the applicant or his representative, if any;
d) A reproduction of the mark whose registration is sought; and
e) The list of the goods or services for which the registration is sought.
127.2 No filing date shall be accorded until the required fee is paid. (n)
2.4

Classes of Good
Sec. 128. Single Registration for Goods and/or Services. - Where goods and/or services
belonging to several classes of the Nice Classification have been included in one (1) application,
such an application shall result in one registration. (n)
1.4.1

2.5

Nice Classification

Priority Right, Sec. 131

131.1. An application for registration of a mark filed in the Philippines by a person referred to in
Section 3, and who previously duly filed an application for registration of the same mark in one
of those countries, shall be considered as filed as of the day the application was first filed in the
foreign country.
131.2. No registration of a mark in the Philippines by a person described in this section shall be
granted until such mark has been registered in the country of origin of the applicant.
131.3. Nothing in this section shall entitle the owner of a registration granted under this section
to sue for acts committed prior to the date on which his mark was registered in this
country: Provided, That, notwithstanding the foregoing, the owner of a well-known mark as
defined in Section 123.1(e) of this Act, that is not registered in the Philippines, may, against an
identical or confusingly similar mark, oppose its registration, or petition the cancellation of its
registration or sue for unfair competition, without prejudice to availing himself of other remedies
provided for under the law.
131.4. In like manner and subject to the same conditions and requirements, the right provided
in this section may be based upon a subsequent regularly filed application in the same foreign
country: Provided, That any foreign application filed prior to such subsequent application has
been withdrawn, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of, without having been laid open to public
inspection and without leaving any rights outstanding, and has not served, nor thereafter shall
serve, as a basis for claiming a right of priority. (Sec. 37, R. A. No. 166a)

2.6

Examination & Publication- Sec. 133

133.1. Once the application meets the filing requirements of Section 127, the Office shall
examine whether the application meets the requirements of Section 124 and the mark as
defined in Section 121 is registrable under Section 123.
133.2. Where the Office finds that the conditions referred to in Subsection 133.1 are fulfilled, it
shall, upon payment of the prescribed fee. Forthwith cause the application, as filed, to be
published in the prescribed manner.
133.3. If after the examination, the applicant is not entitled to registration for any reason, the
Office shall advise the applicant thereof and the reasons therefor. The applicant shall have a
period of four (4) months in which to reply or amend his application, which shall then be reexamined. The Regulations shall determine the procedure for the re-examination or revival of

an application as well as the appeal to the Director of Trademarks from any final action by the
Examiner

1.6.1

Opposition
Dermaline vs. Myra Pharmaceuticals, G.R. No. 190065, October 16, 2010
Supreme Court affirmed the IPOs application of the dominancy test.
The Dermaline Inc mark Dermaline so resembled Myra Pharmaceuticals trademark Dermalin
that its registration would likely confuse and deceive the purchasing public
In determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists between competing trademarks, the
Philippine Supreme Court relies on two principal tests: the dominancy test and the holistic test.
a. The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the
competing trademarks that might cause confusion or deception. In contrast,
b. the holistic test considers the entirety of the marks as applied to the products,
including labels and packaging.

2.7

Certificate of Registration
Sec. 138. Certificates of Registration. - A certificate of registration of a mark shall be prima
facie evidence of the validity of the registration, the registrants ownership of the mark, and of
the registrants exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods or services and
those that are related thereto specified in the certificate. (Sec. 20, R. A. No. 165)

2.8

Duration- Sec. 145

Sec. 145. Duration.- A certificate of registration shall remain in force for ten (10)
years: Provided, That the registrant shall file a declaration of actual use and evidence to that
effect, or shall show valid reasons based on the existence of obstacles to such use, as
prescribed by the Regulations, within one (1) year from the fifth anniversary of the date of the
registration of the mark. Otherwise, the mark shall be removed from the Register by the Office.
(Sec. 12, R. A. No. 166a)
2.8.1

Renewal Sec.146

Sec. 146. Renewal. 146.1. A certificate of registration may be renewed for periods of ten (10) years at its expiration
upon payment of the prescribed fee and upon filing of a request. The request shall contain the
following indications:
a) An indication that renewal is sought;
b) The name and address of the registrant or his successor-in-interest, hereafter referred to as
the "right holder";
c) The registration number of the registration concerned;
d) The filing date of the application which resulted in the registration concerned to be renewed;
e) Where the right holder has a representative, the name and address of that representative;
f) The names of the recorded goods or services for which the renewal is requested or the
names of the recorded goods or services for which the renewal is not requested, grouped
according to the classes of the Nice Classification to which that group of goods or services
belongs and presented in the order of the classes of the said Classification; and
g) A signature by the right holder or his representative.
146.2. Such request shall be in Filipino or English and may be made at any time within six (6)
months before the expiration of the period for which the registration was issued or renewed, or

it may be made within six (6) months after such expiration on payment of the additional fee
herein prescribed.
146.3. If the Office refuses to renew the registration, it shall notify the registrant of his refusal
and the reasons therefor.
146.4. An applicant for renewal not domiciled in the Philippines shall be subject to and comply
with the requirements of this Act.
2.9

Rights - Sec 147

Sec. 147. Rights Conferred. 147.1. The owner of a registered mark shall have the exclusive right to prevent all third parties
not having the owners consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs or
containers for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the
trademark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. In case of the
use, of an identical sign for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be
presumed.
147.2. The exclusive right of the owner of a well-known mark defined in Subsection 123.1(e)
which is registered in the Philippines, shall extend to goods and services which are not similar to
those in respect of which the mark is registered: Provided, That use of that mark in relation to
those goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the
owner of the registered mark: Provided, further, That the interests of the owner of the
registered mark are likely to be damaged by such use. (n

a.

Manuel Samson vs. Wilfo Luminlum, G.R. No. 139983, March 26, 2008

The authority granted to Luminlun to use the OTTO trademark was limited for use on jeans
only. Under the agreement, Samson could revoke the authority if Luminlun should do or cause
to be done any act which would in any way prejudice or discredit the trademark OTTO not only in
connection with its use for jeans but as well as for other products enumerated in Samsons
registration certificates.
Under the circumstances and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
Authority to Use Trademark, we find that Samson was justified in
revoking Luminluns authority to use the OTTO trademark.
b.

Tabacalera vs. Tabaqueria, G.R. No. 161051, July 23, 2009

There is definitely no similarity in the general appearance of the competing products and
hence there is no likelihood that purchasers will be [misled], deceived and confused into
buying Respondents products thinking that they are buying the Tabacalera products that
they intended to buy.
Petitioner failed to substantiate their claim that the abrupt drop in sales was the result of the acts
complained of against private respondent

2.11

Infringement- Sec. 155

Sec. 155. Remedies; Infringement. - Any person who shall, without the consent of the owner of
the registered mark:
155.1. Use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a
registered mark or the same container or a dominant feature thereof in connection with the
sale, offering for sale, distribution, advertising of any goods or services including other
preparatory steps necessary to carry out the sale of any goods or services on or in connection
with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or

155.2. Reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark or a dominant

feature thereof and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels,
signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in
commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of
goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to
cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable in a civil action for infringement by the registrant
for the remedies hereinafter set forth: Provided, That the infringement takes place at the
moment any of the acts stated in Subsection
155.1 or this subsection are committed regardless of whether there is actual sale of goods or
services using the infringing material

a)

Shangri-La vs. Developers Group G.R. No. 159938, March 31, 2006
A: S Development Corporation has a better right to use the logo and tradename, since it was the
first to register the logo and tradename.
Alternative Answer:
S Development Corporation has a better right to use the logo and tradename, because its
certificate of registration upon which the infringement case is based remains valid and subsisting
for as long as it has not been cancelled. (Shangrila International Hotel Management v. CA, G.R. No.

111580, June 21, 2001) (2005 Bar Question)

Registration, without more, does not confer upon the registrant an absolute right to the
registered mark. The certificate of registration is merely a prima facie proof that the
registrant is the owner of the registered mark or trade name. Evidence of prior and
continuous use of the mark or trade name by another can overcome the presumptive
ownership of the registrant and may very well entitle the former to be declared owner in an
appropriate case.14
By itself, registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. When the applicant is
not the owner of the trademark being applied for, he has no right to apply for
registration of the same. Registration merely creates a prima faciepresumption of
the validity of the registration, of the registrant's ownership of the trademark and
of the exclusive right to the use thereof.20 Such presumption, just like the
presumptive regularity in the performance of official functions, is rebuttable and
must give way to evidence to the contrary.
Here, respondent's own witness, Ramon Syhunliong, testified that a jeepney signboard
artist allegedly commissioned to create the mark and logo submitted his designs only in
December 1982.21 This was two-and-a-half months after the filing of the respondent's
trademark application on October 18, 1982 with the BPTTT. It was also only in December
1982 when the respondent's restaurant was opened for business.22 Respondent cannot
now claim before the Court that the certificate of registration itself is proof that the twomonth prior use requirement was complied with, what with the fact that its very own
witness testified otherwise in the trial court. And because at the time (October 18, 1982)
the respondent filed its application for trademark registration of the "Shangri-La" mark and
"S" logo, respondent was not using these in the Philippines commercially, the registration is
void.

the petitioners cannot claim protection under the Paris Convention. Nevertheless, with the double
infirmity of lack of two-month prior use, as well as bad faith in the respondent's registration of the
mark, it is evident that the petitioners cannot be guilty of infringement. It would be a great injustice
to adjudge the petitioners guilty of infringing a mark when they are actually the originator and
creator thereof.
Nor can the petitioners' separate personalities from their mother corporation be an obstacle in the
enforcement of their rights as part of the Kuok Group of Companies and as official repository,
manager and operator of the subject mark and logo. Besides, R.A. No. 166 did not require the party
seeking relief to be the owner of the mark but "any person who believes that he is or will be
damaged by the registration of a mark or trade name." 40

REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN CASE OF INFRINGEMENT OF A REGISTERED MARK

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

2.12

Sue for damages (Sec. 156.1);

Have the infringing goods impounded (Sec. 156.2);
Ask for double damages (Sec. 156.3)
Ask for injunction (156.4)
Have the infringing goods disposed of outside the channels of commerce(Sec. 157.1)
Have the infringing goods destroyed (Sec. 157.1)g) File criminal action (Sec. 170);
Administrative Sanctions

Foreign Corporation- Sec. 160

Sec. 160. Right of Foreign Corporation to Sue in Trademark or Service Mark Enforcement
Action.- Any foreign national or juridical person who meets the requirements of Section 3 of this
Act and does not engage in business in the Philippines may bring a civil or administrative action
hereunder for opposition, cancellation, infringement, unfair competition, or false designation of
origin and false description, whether or not it is licensed to do business in the Philippines under
existing laws. (S

a)

In-N-Out Burger vs. Sehwani Incorporated, G.R. No. 179127, December 24, 2008

Petitioner had the legal capacity to sue in the Philippines, since its country of origin or
domicile was a member of and a signatory to the Convention of Paris on Protection of
Industrial Property. And although petitioner had never done business in the Philippines, it
was widely known in this country through the use herein of products bearing its corporate and
trade name.
the IPO Director for Legal Affairs pronounced in her Decision that petitioner had the
right to use its tradename and mark IN-N-OUT in the Philippines to the exclusion of
others, including the respondents. However, respondents used the mark IN N OUT in good
faith and were not guilty of unfair competition, since respondent Sehwani, Incorporated did
not evince any intent to ride upon petitioners goodwill by copying the mark IN-N-OUT Burger
exactly. The inside of the letter O in the mark used by respondents formed a star. In addition,
the simple act of respondent Sehwani, Incorporated of inquiring into the existence of a pending
application for registration of the IN-N-OUT mark was not deemed
fraudulent. The dispositive part of the Decision of the IPO Director for Legal Affairs reads:
It cancelled the registration of Sehwani

2.13

Trade Names- Sec. 165

Sec. 165. Trade Names or Business Names. 165.1. A name or designation may not be used as a trade name if by its nature or the use to
which such name or designation may be put, it is contrary to public order or morals and if, in
particular, it is liable to deceive trade circles or the public as to the nature of the enterprise
identified by that name.
165.2. (a) Notwithstanding any laws or regulations providing for any obligation to register trade
names, such names shall be protected, even prior to or without registration, against any
unlawful act committed by third parties.
(b) In particular, any subsequent use of the trade name by a third party, whether as a trade
name or a mark or collective mark, or any such use of a similar trade name or mark, likely to
mislead the public, shall be deemed unlawful.
165.3. The remedies provided for in Sections 153 to 156 and Sections 166 and 167 shall
apply mutatis mutandis.
165.4. Any change in the ownership of a trade name shall be made with the transfer of the
enterprise or part thereof identified by that name. The provisions of Subsections 149.2 to 149.4
shall apply mutatis mutandis.

2.14

Unfair Competition- Sec. 168

Sec. 168. Unfair Competition, Rights, Regulation and Remedies. 168.1. A person who has identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufactures or deals
in, his business or services from those of others, whether or not a registered mark is employed,
has a property right in the goodwill of the said goods, business or services so identified, which
will be protected in the same manner as other property rights.
168.2. Any person who shall employ deception or any other means contrary to good faith by
which he shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or
services for those of the one having established such goodwill, or who shall commit any acts
calculated to produce said result, shall be guilty of unfair competition, and shall be subject to an
action therefor.
168.3. In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of protection against unfair
competition, the following shall be deemed guilty of unfair competition:
(a) Any person, who is selling his goods and gives them the general appearance of goods
of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping
of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in any
other feature of their appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers to
believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer, other than the
actual manufacturer or dealer, or who otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance
as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate trade, or any
subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling such
goods with a like purpose;
(b) Any person who by any artifice, or device, or who employs any other means
calculated to induce the false belief that such person is offering the services of another
who has identified such services in the mind of the public; or
(c) Any person who shall make any false statement in the course of trade or who shall
commit any other act contrary to good faith of a nature calculated to discredit the goods,
business or services of another.
168.4. The remedies provided by Sections 156, 157 and 161 shall applymutatis
mutandis. (Sec. 29, R. A. No. 166a)
a)

McDonalds vs. LC Big Mak, G.R. No. 143993, August 28, 2004

Any conduct may be said to constitute unfair competition if the effect is to pass off on the public
the goods of one man as the goods of another. The choice of Big Mak as trade name by defendant
corporation is not merely for sentimental reasons but was clearly made to take advantage of the
reputation, popularity and the established goodwill of plaintiff McDonalds. For as stated in Section 29, a
person is guilty of unfair competition who in selling his goods shall give them the general
appearance, of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as goods themselves or in the
wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in
any other feature of their appearance, which would likely influence purchasers to believe that the
goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer other than the actual manufacturer or
dealer. Thus, plaintiffs have established their valid cause of action against the defendants for trademark
infringement and unfair competition and for damages.
Q: What are the elements to be established in trademark infringement?
A: The following are elements to be established in trademark infringement
1. The validity of the mark
2. The plaintiffs ownership of the mark
3. The use of the mark or its colorable imitation by the alleged infringer results in
likelihood of confusion. (McDonalds Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc.,
G.R. No. 143993, Aug 18, 2004)
The SC held that the respondent is liable for infringement because it violated Sec 155.1
of the IPC which stated that any person who shall, without the consent of the owner of
the registered mark use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable
imitation of a registered mark or the same container or a dominant feature thereof
in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, advertising of any goods or

services on orin connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause
mistake, or to deceive.
TEST OF TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
1. Dominancy Test consists in seeking out the main, essential or dominant features
of a mark.
2. Holistic Test taker stock of the other features of a mark, taking into consideration
the entirety of the marks.
DIFFERENTIATED FROM UNFAIR COMPETITION
1. Cause of action: in infringement, the cause of action is the unauthorized use of a registered
trademark; in unfair competition, it is the passing off of ones goods as those of another
merchant.
2. Fraudulent intent is not necessary in infringement, but necessary in UC.
3. Registration of trademarks: in infringement, it is a pre-requisite; in UC, itis not required.
4. Class of goods involved: in infringement, the goods must be of similar class; in UC, the
goods need not be of the same classs infringement is a form of unfair competition
b)

McDonalds vs. MacJoy, G.R. No. 166115, February 2, 2007

Applying the dominancy test to the instant case, the Court finds that herein petitioners
"MCDONALDS" and respondents "MACJOY" marks are confusingly similar with each other
such that an ordinary purchaser can conclude an association or relation between the marks.
YES. Both marks use the corporate "M" design logo and the prefixes "Mc" and/or "Mac" as
dominant features. The first letter "M" in both marks puts emphasis on the prefixes "Mc"
and/or "Mac" by the similar way in which they are depicted i.e. in an arch like, capitalized
and stylized manner. It is the prefix "Mc," an abbreviation of "Mac," which visually and
aurally catches the attention of the consuming public. Both trademarks are used in the sale
of fastfood products.

Q: What distinguishes infringement of trademark from unfair competition?

A:
INFRINGEMENT OF
TRADEMARK

UNFAIR
COMPETITION

Unauthorized use of a
trademark.
Fraudulent intent is
unnecessary.
Prior registration of the
trademark is a
prerequisite to the action.

The passing off of ones goods

as those of another.
Fraudulent intent is essential.
Registration is not necessary.
(Del Monte Corp. v. CA, G.R.
No. 78325, Jan. 23, 1990)

PATENT LAW
3.1

Definitions- Sec. 20 & 21

Sec. 20. Definition of Terms Used in Part II, The Law on Patents. -- As used in Part II, the
following terms shall have the following meanings:
20.1. Bureau means the Bureau of Patents;
20.2. Director means the Director of Patents;
20.3. Regulations means the Rules of Practice in Patent Cases formulated by the Director of
Patents and promulgated by the Director General;
20.4. Examiner means the patent examiner;

20.5. Patent application or application means an application for a patent for an invention
except in Chapters XII and XIII, where application means an application for a utility model and
an industrial design, respectively; and
20.6. Priority date means the date of filing of the foreign application for the same invention
referred to in Section 31 of this Act. (n)
Chapter II
PATENTABILITY
Sec. 21. Patentable Inventions.
Any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an inventive
step and is industrially applicable shall be patentable. It may be, or may relate to, a product, or process,
or an improvement of any of the foregoing. (Sec. 7, R. A. No. 165a)

3.2

3.3

Restrictions- Sec. 22 ( DSM-PAA)

Sec. 22. Non-Patentable Inventions. - The following shall be excluded from patent protection:
22.1. Discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
22.2. Schemes, rules and methods of performing mental acts, playing games or doing business,
and programs for computers;
22.3 Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic
methods practiced on the human or animal body.
This provision shall not apply to products and composition for use in any of these methods;
22.4. Plant varieties or animal breeds or essentially biological process for the production of
plants or animals.
This provision shall not apply to micro-organisms and non-biological and microbiological
processes.
Provisions under this subsection shall not preclude Congress to consider the enactment of a law
providing sui generis protection of plant varieties and animal breeds and a system of community
intellectual rights protection:
22.5. Aesthetic creations; and
22.6. Anything which is contrary to public order or morality. (
Patentability
3.3.1

Subject Matter
Diamond vs. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 LINK
A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under 101.
Respondent's micro-organism constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter"
within that statute. Pp. 308-318.
Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws should be given wide scope by
choosing expansive terms like "manufacture" and "composition of matter," modified by
the comprehensive "any," under Section 101 of the Patent Act.The only exceptions to the
scope of patentable subject matter are laws of nature, physical phenomenon and
abstract ideas. In the light of Section 101 Chakrabarty's bacterium is patentable subject
matter as it is a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter and a
product of human ingenuity "having a distinctive name, character and use.

3.3.2 Novelty Sec. 23

Novelty. - An invention shall not be considered new if it forms part of a prior art
Rosaire vs. National Lead Co., 218 F.2d 72 LINK

An invention is not patentable if it "was known or used by others in this country" before
the patentee's invention thereof.
the patents invalid, it is not necessary to consider the question of infringement.

3.3.3 Inventive Step Sec 26

Sec. 26. Inventive Step. - An invention involves an inventive step if, having regard to prior art,
it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the filing date or priority date of the
application claiming the invention.
Aguas vs. De Leon, G.R. No. L-32160, January 30, 1982
It should be noted that the private respondent does not claim to be the discoverer or
inventor of the old process of tile-making. He only claims to have introduced an
improvement of said process. In fact, Letters Patent No. 658 was issued by the Philippine
Patent Office to the private respondent Conrado G. De Leon, to protect his rights as the
inventor of an alleged new and useful improvement in the process of making pre-cast
tiles. Indeed, section 7, Republic Act No. 165, as amended provides: Any invention of
a new and useful machine, manufactured product or substance, process, or an
improvement of the foregoing, shall be patentable.
The validity of the patent issued by the Philippine Patent Office in favor of the private
respondent and the question over the investments, novelty and usefulness of the
improved process therein specified and described are matters which are better
determined by the Philippines Patent Office. The technical Staff of the Philippines Patent
Office, composed of experts in their field, have, by the issuance of the patent in
question, accepted the thinness of the private respondent's new tiles as a discovery.
There is a presumption that the Philippine Patent Office has correctly determined the
patentability of the improvement by the private respondent of the process in question.

3.3.4 Industrial Applicability Sec. 27

Sec. 27. Industrial Applicability. - An invention that can be produced and used in any industry
shall be industrially applicable. (n)
Juicy Whip vs. Orange Bang, 185 F.3d 1364 LINK
The Appellate Court looked to 101 and found that an invention is useful if it is capable
of providing some identifiable benefit. The Court found that there are lots of 'useful'
products that are imitations of other things (like cubic zirconium). So the fact that the
Juicy Whip invention imitates fresh juice doesn't mean that it isn't useful.
The Court found that there was no basis for holding that an invention was unpatentable
for lack of utility simply because it has the capacity to fool some members of the public.
The Court noted that Juicy Whip's drink machine was perfectly legal, and if Congress
didn't like it, they were free to change the law. However, it was not the job of the USPTO
to displace the police powers of the States and promote the health, order, peace, and
welfare of the community

3.3.5
3.4

Enablement

Priority-Sec. 31
Sec. 31. Right of Priority. - An application for patent filed by any person who has previously
applied for the same invention in another country which by treaty, convention, or law affords
similar privileges to Filipino citizens, shall be considered as filed as of the date of filing the
foreign application: Provided, That:
a. the local application expressly claims priority;

b. it is filed within twelve (12) months from the date the earliest foreign application was
filed; and
c. a certified copy of the foreign application together with an English translation is filed
within six (6) months from the date of filing in the Philippines. (Sec. 15, R. A. No. 165a

3.5

Application- Secs. 32 to 39
Sec. 32. The Application. 32.1. The patent application shall be in Filipino or English and shall contain the following:
(a) A request for the grant of a patent;
(b) A description of the invention;
(c) Drawings necessary for the understanding of the invention;
(d) One or more claims; and
(e) An abstract.
32.2. No patent may be granted unless the application identifies the inventor. If the applicant is
not the inventor, the Office may require him to submit said authority. (Sec. 13, R. A. No. 165a)
Sec. 33. Appointment of Agent or Representative. - An applicant who is not a resident of the
Philippines must appoint and maintain a resident agent or representative in the Philippines upon
whom notice or process for judicial or administrative procedure relating to the application for
patent or the patent may be served. (Sec. 11, R. A. No. 165a)
Sec. 34. The Request. - The request shall contain a petition for the grant of the patent, the
name and other data of the applicant, the inventor and the agent and the title of the
invention. (n)
Sec. 35. Disclosure and Description of the Invention. 35.1. Disclosure. - The application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and
complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. Where the application concerns a
microbiological process or the product thereof and involves the use of a micro-organism which
cannot be sufficiently disclosed in the application in such a way as to enable the invention to be
carried out by a person skilled in the art, and such material is not available to the public, the
application shall be supplemented by a deposit of such material with an international depository
institution.
35.2. Description. - The Regulations shall prescribe the contents of the description and the order
of presentation. (Sec. 14, R. A. No. 165a)
Sec. 36. The Claims. 36.1. The application shall contain one (1) or more claims which shall define the matter for
which protection is sought. Each claim shall be clear and concise, and shall be supported by the
description.
36.2. The Regulations shall prescribe the manner of the presentation of claims. (n)
Sec. 37. The Abstract. - The abstract shall consist of a concise summary of the disclosure of the
invention as contained in the description, claims and drawings in preferably not more than one
hundred fifty (150) words. It must be drafted in a way which allows the clear understanding of
the technical problem, the gist of the solution of that problem through the invention, and the
principal use or uses of the invention. The abstract shall merely serve for technical
information. (n)
Sec. 38. Unity of Invention. 38.1. The application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions
forming a single general inventive concept.
38.2. If several independent inventions which do not form a single general inventive
concept are claimed in one application, the Director may require that the application be
restricted to a single invention. A later application filed for an invention divided out shall
be considered as having been filed on the same day as the first application: Provided,
That the later application is filed within four (4) months after the requirement to divide
becomes final, or within such additional time, not exceeding four (4) months, as may be

granted: Provided further, That each divisional application shall not go beyond the
disclosure in the initial application.
38.3. The fact that a patent has been granted on an application that did not comply with
the requirement of unity of invention shall not be a ground to cancel the patent. (Sec.
17, R. A. No. 165a)
Sec. 39. Information Concerning Corresponding Foreign Application for Patents. - The
applicant shall, at the request of the Director, furnish him with the date and number of
any application for a patent filed by him abroad, hereafter referred to as the "foreign
application," relating to the same or essentially the same invention as that claimed in the
application filed with the Office and other documents relating to the foreign
application. (n)

3.6

Duration-Sec. 54
Sec. 54. Term of Patent. - The term of a patent shall be twenty (20) years from the filing date
of the application

3.7

Cancellation-Sec. 61
Sec. 61. Cancellation of Patents. 61.1. Any interested person may, upon payment of the required fee, petition to cancel the
patent or any claim thereof, or parts of the claim, on any of the following grounds:
a. That what is claimed as the invention is not new or patentable;
b. That the patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear
and complete for it to be carried out by any person skilled in the art ; or
c. That the patent is contrary to public order or morality.
Manzano vs. CA & Madolaria, G.R. No. G.R. No. 113388. September 5, 1997
The issuance of such patent creates a presumption which yields only to clear and cogent
evidence that the patentee was the original and first inventor. The burden of proving
want of novelty is on him who avers it and the burden is a heavy one which is met only
by clear and satisfactory proof which overcomes every reasonable doubt. Clearly enough,
the petitioner failed to present clear and satisfactory proof to overcome every reasonable
doubt to afford the cancellation of the patent to the private respondent.

3.8

Rights of a Patentee- Sec. 71

Sec. 71. Rights Conferred by Patent. 71.1. A patent shall confer on its owner the following exclusive rights:
a. Where the subject matter of a patent is a product, to restrain, prohibit and prevent any
unauthorized person or entity from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing
that product;
b. Where the subject matter of a patent is a process, to restrain, prevent or prohibit any
unauthorized person or entity from using the process, and from manufacturing, dealing
in, using, selling or offering for sale, or importing any product obtained directly or
indirectly from such process.
71.2. Patent owners shall also have the right to assign, or transfer by succession the patent,
and to conclude licensing contracts for the same. (Sec. 37, R. A. No. 165a)

3.8.1

Limitations Sec. 72

Sec. 72. Limitations of Patent Rights. - The owner of a patent has no right to prevent third
parties from performing, without his authorization, the acts referred to in Section 71 hereof in
the following circumstances:
72.1 Using a patented product which has been put on the market in the Philippines by
the owner of the product, or with his express consent, insofar as such use is performed
after that product has been so put on the said market;

72.2. Where the act is done privately and on a non-commercial scale or for a noncommercial purpose: Provided, That it does not significantly prejudice the economic
interests of the owner of the patent;
72.3. Where the act consists of making or using exclusively for the purpose of
experiments that relate to the subject matter of the patented invention;
72.4. Where the act consists of the preparation for individual cases, in a pharmacy or by
a medical professional, of a medicine in accordance with a medical prescription or acts
concerning the medicine so prepared;
72.5. Where the invention is used in any ship, vessel, aircraft, or land vehicle of any
other
country
entering
the
territory
of
the
Philippines
temporarily
or
accidentally: Provided, That such invention is used exclusively for the needs of the ship,
vessel, aircraft, or land vehicle and not used for the manufacturing of anything to be sold
within the Philippines. (Secs. 38 and 39, R. A. No. 165a)

Roma Drug vs. RTC of Guagua, Pampanga, G.R. No. 149907, April 16, 2009The SC denounced SLCD for it violated equal protection. It does not allow private
3rd parties to import such medicines abroad even in cases of life and death nor does it
allow the importation by 3rd parties in cases wherein the stocks of such medicine would
run out.
It discriminates at the expense of Filipinos who cannot travel abroad to purchase such
medicines yet need them badly. Nevertheless, the flawed intention of Congress had been
abrogated by the passage of RA 9502 Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality
Medicines Act of 2008 and its IRR.
This law does not expressly repeal SLCD but it emphasized that any medicine introduced
into the Philippines by its patent holder be accessible to anyone. It provides that the
right to import drugs and medicines shall be available to any government agency OR
ANY PRIVATE 3rd PARTY. The SC noted that this law provided and recognized the
constitutionally-guaranteed right of the public to health.

3.8.2

Infringement Sec. 76
76.6. Anyone who actively induces the infringement of a patent or provides the infringer
with a component of a patented product or of a product produced because of a patented
process knowing it to be especially adopted for infringing the patented invention and not
suitable for substantial non-infringing use shall be liable as a contributory infringer and
shall be jointly and severally liable with the infringer.

a)

Creser Precision vs. Floro International, G.R. No. 118708, February 2, 1998
A person or entity who has not been granted letters patent over an invention and
has not acquired any light or title thereto either as assignee or as licensee, has no
cause of action for infringement because the right to maintain an infringement suit
depends on the existence of the patent. 14
CRESER PRECISION SYSTEMS, INC admits it has no patent over its aerial fuze.
Therefore, it has no legal basis or cause of action to institute the petition for
injunction and damages arising from the alleged infringement by private respondent.
While petitioner claims to be the first inventor of the aerial fuze, still it has no right
of property over the same upon which it can maintain a suit unless it obtains a
patent therefor. Under American jurisprudence, an inventor has no common-law
right to a monopoly of his invention. He has the right to make, use and vend his own
invention, but if he voluntarily discloses it, such as by offering it for sale, the world is

free to copy and use it with impunity. A patent, however, gives the inventor the
right.

b)

Smith Kline Beckman vs. CA & Tryco Pharma Corp, GR. 126627, August 14, 2003
The SC in defining the Doctrine of Equivalents stated that infringement also
takes place when a particular devise appropriates a prior invention by
incorporating its innovative concept and although with some modification and
changes performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way
to achieve substantially the same result.
The SC held that this doctrine does not apply in the instant case because Tyco
Pharma failed to substantiate its claim that the two products works the same way
in fighting parasites in animals. Therefore, there was no infringement.

3.9

Licensing- Secs. 85 & 93

Sec. 85. Voluntary License Contract. - To encourage the transfer and dissemination of
technology, prevent or control practices and conditions that may in particular cases constitute
an abuse of intellectual property rights having an adverse effect on competition and trade, all
technology transfer arrangements shall comply with the provisions of this Chapter. (n)
Sec. 93. Grounds for Compulsory Licensing. - The Director of Legal Affairs may grant a
license to exploit a patented invention, even without the agreement of the patent owner, in
favor of any person who has shown his capability to exploit the invention, under any of the
following circumstances:
93.1. National emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency;
93.2. Where the public interest, in particular, national security, nutrition, health or the
development of other vital sectors of the national economy as determined by the appropriate
agency of the Government, so requires; or
93.3. Where a judicial or administrative body has determined that the manner of exploitation by
the owner of the patent or his licensee is anti-competitive; or
Voluntary & Compulsory

a.

Barry John Price vs. United Laboratories, G.R. No. 82542, September 29, 1998

It held that the Director of Patents fixed the terms and conditions of the compulsory
license agreement after a hearing and careful consideration of the evidence of the
parties.
The compulsory license itself was only resorted to after the parties had been given a
chance to negotiate between themselves and had defaulted. Section 36 of RA 165 gives
the Director of Patents the power to fix the terms and conditions of the license after the
case for a license has been made out.
United Laboratories acquisition of a compulsory license, however, proved to be a pyrrhic
victory. When United Laboratories was about to launch its own anti-ulcer brand,
Gastocell, using the patented formula, Barry John Price launched a much improved
version denominated Ranitidin II covered by a different patent. As a consequence,
United Laboratories made a business decision not to launch Gastocell. Instead, it filed
another application for a compulsory license for Ranitidin II.

b.

Smith Kline vs. Doctors Pharmaceuticals, G.R. No. 121867, July 24, 1997

We find that the granting of compulsory license is not simply because Sec. 34 (1) e, RA
165 allows it in cases where the invention relates to food and medicine. The Director of
Patents also considered in determining that the applicant has the capability to work or
make use of the patented product in the manufacture of a useful product. In this case,
the applicant was able to show that Cimetidine, (subject matter of latters Patent No.
12207) is necessary for the manufacture of an anti-ulcer drug/medicine, which is
necessary for the promotion of public health. Hence, the award of compulsory license is
a valid exercise of police power.

c.

Smith Kline vs. Danlex Research, G.R. No. 121267, October 23, 2001

The granting OF compulsory license to Danlex for the use of product Cimetidine is
a valid exercise of police power. Cimetidine is medicinal in nature, and therefore
necessary for the promotion of public health and safety.
The legislative intent in the grant of a compulsory license was not only to afford others
an opportunity to provide the public with the quantity of the patented product, but also
to prevent the growth of monopolies.
Certainly, the growth of monopolies was among the abuses which Section A, Article 5 of
the Convention foresaw, and which our Congress likewise wished to prevent in enacting.

3.9

Utility Models- Sec. 108

Sec. 108. Applicability of Provisions Relating to Patents. 108.1. Subject to Section 109, the provisions governing patents shall apply, mutatis mutandis,
to the registration of utility models.
108.2. Where the right to a patent conflicts with the right to a utility model registration in the
case referred to in Section 29, the said provision shall apply as if the word patent were replaced
by the words "patent or utility model registration."

Del Rosario vs. CA & Janito Corporation, G.R. 115106, March 15, 1996

The Patent Law expressly acknowledges that any new model of implements or tools of
any industrial product even if not possessed of the quality of invention but which is of practical
utility is entitled to a patent for utility model.
Here, there is no dispute that the letters patent issued to Del Rosario are for
utility models of audio equipment. It is elementary that a patent may be infringed where the
essential or substantial features of the patented invention are taken or appropriated, or the
device, machine or other subject matter alleged to infringe is substantially identical with
the patented invention. In order to infringe a patent, a machine or device must perform the
same function, or accomplish the same result by identical or substantially identical means and
the principle or mode of operation must be substantially the same. In the case at bar, miyata
karaoke was proven to have substantial if not identical functionality as that of the minus
one karaoke which was covered by the second patent issued to Del Rosario. Further, Janito failed
to present competent evidence that will show that Del Rosarios innovation is not new.

3.10

Industrial Design ,Sec. 112- (Memorize)

Sec. 112. Definition of Terms:

a. Industrial Design is any composition of lines or colors or any three-dimensional form, whether
or not associated with lines or colors: Provided,That such composition or form gives a special
appearance to and can serve as pattern for an industrial product or handicraft;

b. Integrated Circuit means a product, in its final form, or an intermediate form, in which the
elements, at least one of which is an active element and some or all of the interconnections are
integrally formed in and/or on a piece of material, and which is intended to perform an
electronic function; and
c. Layout-Design is synonymous with 'Topography' and means the three-dimensional disposition,
however expressed, of the elements, at least one of which is an active element, and of some or
all of the interconnections of an integrated circuit, or such a three-dimensional disposition
prepared for an integrated circuit intended for manufacture. cha