INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

DEALS WITH THE RULES FOR SECURING AND ENFORCING LEGAL RIGHTS TO
• INVENTIONS,
• DESIGNS, AND
• ARTISTIC WORKS.
PROTECTS
• OWNERSHIP OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL ESTATE
• EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, SECTION 8
• GIVES CONGRESS EXPRESS AUTHORITY TO GRANT AUTHORS AND INVENTORS EXCLUSIVE
RIGHTS TO THEIR CREATIONS
• POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, PROVIDING FURTHER SUPPORT
FOR ITS RIGHT TO LEGISLATE IN THIS AREA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS ARE ADMINISTERED BY TWO
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES,
• THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, AND
• THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE.
PAT E N T S TRADEMARKS COPYRIGHT
GIVE INVENTORS THE RIGHT PROTECT SYMBOLS, NAMES, AND APPLY TO WRITINGS, MUSIC,
TO USE THEIR PRODUCT IN SLOGANS USED TO IDENTIFY GOODS MOTION PICTURES, ARCHITECT
THE MARKETPLACE, OR TO AND SERVICES. THE PURPOSE IS TO TURE, AND OTHER ORIGINAL
PROFIT BY TRANSFERRING AVOID CONFUSION, DETER INTELLECTUAL AND ARTISTIC
THAT RIGHT TO SOMEONE MISLEADING ADVERTISING, AND EXPRESSIONS. PROTECTION IS
ELSE. NEW MACHINES, HELP CONSUMERS DISTINGUISH ONE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THEORIES
TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVE BRAND FROM ANOTHER OR IDEAS, OR ANYTHING THAT
MENTS, MANUFACTURED HAS NOT BEEN CAPTURED IN A
GOODS, INCLUDING THE FIXED MEDIUM.
“LOOK” OF A PRODUCT.
PROTECTION AGAINST INFRINGEMENT
INFRINGEMENT REFERS TO THE UNAUTHORIZED USE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

+ OWNERS SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO PUT THE WORLD ON NOTICE THAT THEIR RIGHTS EXIST
- DETER INFRINGEMENT BY MAKING THE OWNER’S RIGHTS MORE VISIBLE TO THOSE WHO
MIGHT INADVERTENTLY VIOLATE THEM
- TRIGGERS ADDITIONAL LEGAL BENEFITS
- PUTS THE OWNER IN A BETTER POSITION TO PROSECUTE AN INFRINGEMENT IN COURT
PROTECTION AGAINST INFRINGEMENT
• PATENT NUMBER - INVENTORS CAN GIVE NOTICE OF THEIR RIGHTS BY MARKING THEIR PRODUCT WITH
THE PATENT NUMBER ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• PATENT PENDING - THE LABEL “PATENT PENDING” CAN ALSO BE USED TO DISCOURAGE OTHERS FROM
COPYING THE DESIGN BEFORE THE PATENT IS AWARDED.
• TM, ©, ETC. - NOTICE OF TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS IS GIVEN BY PLACING THE APPROPRIATE
SYMBOL ON THE MATERIAL
• REGISTER TO GOV’T. DATABASE
• THE WORLD'S NUMBER ONE SOURCE FOR GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (PATENTS, INDUSTRIAL
DESIGNS, COPYRIGHT, TRADEMARKS ETC.) INFORMATION, RESOURCES, AND SERVICES.
• MISSION: IS TO LEAD THE DEVELOPMENT OF A BALANCED AND EFFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY (IP) SYSTEM THAT ENABLES INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL. OUR
MANDATE, GOVERNING BODIES AND PROCEDURES ARE SET OUT IN THE WIPO CONVENTION, WHICH
ESTABLISHED WIPO IN 1967.
• US MAIN IP LAWS: ENACTED BY LEGISLATURE
• US MAIN IP LAWS: ENACTED BY LEGISLATURE
• US IP-RELATED LAWS: ENACTED BY LEGISLATURE
• US IP-RELATED LAWS: ENACTED BY LEGISLATURE
• US IP-RELATED LAWS: ENACTED BY LEGISLATURE

Reference: World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile.jsp?code=US

• IPOPHL IS A GOVERNMENT AGENCY IN CHARGE OF REGISTRATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND
CONFLICT RESOLUTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE PHILIPPINES.
R.A. 8293 THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE
1. RA 10667: Philippine Competition Act (2015)
2. RA 10175: Cybercrime Prevention Act (2012)
3. RA 10088: Anti-Camcording Act (2010)
4. RA 10055: Philippine Technology Transfer Act (2009)
5. RA 9711: Food and Drug Administration Act (2009)
6. RA 9502: Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act (2008)
7. RA 9239: Optical Media Act (2003)
8. RA 9168: Philippine Plant Variety Protection Act (2002)
9. RA 9160: Anti-Money Laundering Act (2001) and its amendments R.A. 9194 (2002), R.A. 10167 (2011), R.A.
10365 (2013)
10. RA 8792: e-Commerce Act (2000)
11. RA 8203: Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs (1996)
12. RA 7394: Consumer Act (1992)
13. RA 3720: Foods, Drugs & Devices, and Cosmetics Act
14. RA 623: Use of Duly-Stamped and Marked Containers (1951), as amended by R.A. 5700
INFRINGEMENT CASES
`BIG MAK' WINS INFRINGEMENT CASE
FILED BY MCDONALD'S
PHIL STAR GLOBAL | JANUARY 14, 2000
• BIG MAK BURGER INC. HAS WON AN INFRINGEMENT SUIT FILED AGAINST IT BY THE LOCAL LICENSEE OF
THE US-BASED MCDONALD'S CORP. AFTER THE COURT OF APPEALS (CA) THREW OUT THE LATTER'S
COMPLAINT OF

UNFAIR COMPETITION
`BIG MAK' WINS INFRINGEMENT CASE
FILED BY MCDONALD'S
PHIL STAR GLOBAL | JANUARY 14, 2000
“"THE MERE SUSPECTED SIMILARITY IN THE SOUND OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S CORPORATE NAME
(BIG MAK) WITH THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE'S (MCDONALD'S) TRADEMARK IS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
CONCLUDE UNFAIR COMPETITION," RULED JUSTICE ELOY BELLO OF THE CA'S FIRST DIVISION.”
`BIG MAK' WINS INFRINGEMENT CASE
FILED BY MCDONALD'S
PHIL STAR GLOBAL | JANUARY 14, 2000

THE DECISION STATED THAT BIG MAK DID NOT VIOLATE THE LAWS OF INFRINGEMENT SINCE ITS CORPORATE
NAME WAS "DERIVED FROM BOTH THE FIRST NAMES OF THE MOTHER AND FATHER OF DEFENDANT FRANCIS
DY, WHOSE NAMES ARE

MAXIMA AND KIMSOY."

`BIG MAK' WINS INFRINGEMENT CASE
FILED BY MCDONALD'S
PHIL STAR GLOBAL | JANUARY 14, 2000

THE CA RULING REVERSED AND SET ASIDE THE NOVEMBER 1990 DECISION OF THE MAKATI COURT, WHICH
DECIDED IN MCDONALD'S FAVOR, ORDERING BIG MAK TO PAY MCDONALD'S P600,000 IN DAMAGES.
MCDONALD'S LOCAL LICENSEE IS MCGEORGE FOOD INDUSTRIES INC.
`BIG MAK' WINS INFRINGEMENT CASE
FILED BY MCDONALD'S
PHIL STAR GLOBAL | JANUARY 14, 2000

INSTEAD, MCDONALD'S WAS ORDERED TO PAY THE LOCAL FOOD CHAIN A TOTAL OF P1.9 MILLION IN
DAMAGES, SAYING BIG MAK "LOST PROFITS" WHEN IT CLOSED FOUR OF ITS BRANCHES IN METRO MANILA
AND RIZAL BETWEEN 1989 AND 1990.
*
THE APPEALS COURT ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IT DOES NOT SEE ANY ILL MOTIVE OR BAD FAITH ON THE PART
OF BIG MAK.
THE COURT ALSO CITED THE "GLARING DISSIMILARITIES" BETWEEN BIG MAK AND MCDONALD'S, SAYING
THE FORMER USES AN ORANGE COLOR SCHEME IN ALL ITS SIGNAGES AND IS ALWAYS ACCOMPANIED BY ITS
MASCOT, A CHUBBY BOY NAMED MAKY. ON THE OTHER HAND, MCDONALD'S USES RED AND BLACK IN ALL ITS
PRODUCTS, AN "UMBRELLA M" AND A TALL AND SLENDER "RONALD MCDONALD."
ABS-CBN FILES P127M COPYRIGHT CASE
VS. ‘WILLING WILLIE’
ABS-CBN NEWS | NOVEMBER 25, 2010
INFRINGEMENT CASE
• ABS-CBN VS. ITS FORMER TALENT, WILLIE REVILLAME, HIS PRODUCTION OUTFIT (WILPRODUCTIONS,
INC.), AND ABC5, NOW KNOWN AS TV5 BEFORE THE MAKATI REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC)
• ABS-CBN CLAIMED THAT REVILLAME AND HIS CO-DEFENDANTS UNLAWFULLY INFRINGED ON ABS-CBN’S
COPYRIGHT OVER ITS SHOW, WOWOWEE, CITING SECTION 172.2(L) OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
CODE
ABS-CBN FILES P127M COPYRIGHT CASE
VS. ‘WILLING WILLIE’
ABS-CBN NEWS | NOVEMBER 25, 2010
INFRINGEMENT CASE
• WOWOWEE EPISODES, AND IS THUS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION BY ABS-CBN
• REVILLAME'S NEW SHOW WILLING WILLIE ON TV5 IS SO CLOSELY SIMILAR TO WOWOWEE
• CASE: “ "DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY IMITATED WOWOWEE TO STEAL THE GOODWILL THAT
WOWOWEE HAS BUILT OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS OF AIRING IN ABS-CBN.“”
ABS-CBN FILES P127M COPYRIGHT CASE
VS. ‘WILLING WILLIE’
LIST OF ‘WILLING WILLIE’ ACTS OF PLAGIARISM IN THE COMPLAINT:
1. WILLING WILLIE’S OPENING SONG AND/OR DANCE NUMBER LED BY ITS HOST;
2. WOWOWEE’S “BIGA-TEN” VERSUS WILLING WILLIE’S “BIG TIME KA”;
3. WOWOWEE’S “WILLIE OF FORTUNE” VERSUS WILLING WILLIE’S “WILLTIME BIGTIME,”
4. DANCERS/CHARACTERS OF WOWOWEE ARE ALSO APPEARING IN WILLING WILLIE
5. SET DESIGN, STAGE, STUDIO VIEWERS’ SEATS LAY-OUT, LIGHTING AND CAMERA ANGLES OF WILLING
WILLIE ARE ALSO STRIKINGLY SIMILAR TO WOWOWEE.
STARBUCKS WINS PH CASE OVER ‘FRAP’
TRADEMARK REPORT
BUSINESS WORLD | SEPTEMBER 26, 2014
• A PHILIPPINE COMPANY TRIED TO REGISTER THE NAME
‘FRAP’ FOR A MARKETING SLOGAN
• CAFÉ DE MANILA CORP – FILED AN APP TO USE THE PHRASE
“THE FRAP BAR EVERYONE DESERVES” AND DESIGNS ON ITS
COFFEE PRODUCTS
• STARBUCKS OWN THE TM TO “FRAPPUCINO”
(LINE OF FROZEN COFFEE DRINKS)
STARBUCKS WINS PH CASE OVER ‘FRAP’
TRADEMARK REPORT
STARBUCKS WINS PH CASE OVER ‘FRAP’
TRADEMARK REPORT
BUSINESS WORLD | SEPTEMBER 26, 2014
• THE IP OFFICE’S BUREAU OF LEGAL AFFAIRS (BLA) RULED IN FAVOR OF SB CITING THE IP CODE OF THE PH

SECTION 123 (D) OF R.A. NO. 8293

“A MARK CANNOT BE REGISTERED IF IT IS IDENTICAL WITH A REGISTERED MARK BELONGING TO A
DIFFERENT PROPRIETOR OR A MARK WITH AN EARLIER FILING OR PRIORITY DATE WITH RESPECT OF THE
SAME GOODS OR SERVICES, CLOSELY RELATED GOODS OR SERVICES, OR IF IT NEARLY RESEMBLES SUCH A
MARK AS TO BE LIKELY TO DECEIVE OR CAUSE CONFUSION.”
STARBUCKS WINS PH CASE OVER ‘FRAP’
TRADEMARK REPORT
BUSINESS WORLD | SEPTEMBER 26, 2014
• WORD FRAP CONSTITUTES A PREFIX OR DOMINANT PART OF SB REGISTERED TRADEMARKS,
FRAPPUCCINO, BECAUSE IT MAY LEAD TO A LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION AND DECEPTION AMONG THE
PURCHASING PUBLIC
STARBUCKS WINS PH CASE OVER ‘FRAP’
TRADEMARK REPORT
BUSINESS WORLD | SEPTEMBER 26, 2014

ANOTHER CASE OF FRAPPUCCINO INFRINGEMENT CASE…

• A PUB OWNER IN COTTLEVILLE, MISSOURI, WHO SERVED A

VANILLA CRÈME AND CHOCOLATE COFFEE ALE DUBBED

“FRAPPICINO”, RECEIVED A LETTER FROM SB’ S LAWYERS ASKING

HIM TO STOP USING THE NAME

• REPORT: “THE FRAPPICINO MARK ONLY DIFFERS FROM

STARBUCKS COFFEE CO.’S FRAPPUCCINO MARK BY ONE

LETTER AND IS PHONETICALLY IDENTICAL”

STARBUCKS WINS PH CASE OVER ‘FRAP’
TRADEMARK REPORT
BUSINESS WORLD | SEPTEMBER 26, 2014
ANOTHER CASE OF FRAPPUCCINO INFRINGEMENT CASE…

• A PUB OWNER SENT SB A CHEEKY LETTER

SAYING HE WILL STOP USING THE “F WORD”,
AS WELL AS A CHECK REPRESENTING HIS
PROFITS FROM THE DRINK WHICH AMOUNTED
TO $6

http://www.adweek.com/digital/starbucks-gets-frap-slapped-by-missouri-pub-owner/