[{"id":"507d47a","elType":"container","settings":{"element_pack_agbg_color_list":[{"_id":"c1a43ae"},{"start_color":"#567445","end_color":"#1D1BE0","_id":"084251d"}],"ekit_section_parallax_multi_items":[],"ep_widget_cf_colors":"#D30C5C, #0EBCDC, #EAED41, #ED5A78, #DF33DF","ep_widget_cf_shapes":"square|circle","ep_widget_cf_shapes_emoji":"\ud83c\udf83|\ud83c\udf84|\ud83d\udc9c","ep_widget_cf_shapes_svg":"M167 72c19,-38 37,-56 75,-56 42,0 76,33 76,75 0,76 -76,151 -151,227 -76,-76 -151,-151 -151,-227 0,-42 33,-75 75,-75 38,0 57,18 76,56z|M120 240c-41,14 -91,18 -120,1 29,-10 57,-22 81,-40 -18,2 -37,3 -55,-3 25,-14 48,-30 66,-51 -11,5 -26,8 -45,7 20,-14 40,-30 57,-49 -13,1 -26,2 -38,-1 18,-11 35,-25 51,-43 -13,3 -24,5 -35,6 21,-19 40,-41 53,-67 14,26 32,48 54,67 -11,-1 -23,-3 -35,-6 15,18 32,32 51,43 -13,3 -26,2 -38,1 17,19 36,35 56,49 -19,1 -33,-2 -45,-7 19,21 42,37 67,51 -19,6 -37,5 -56,3 25,18 53,30 82,40 -30,17 -79,13 -120,-1l0 41 -31 0 0 -41z|M449.4 142c-5 0-10 .3-15 1a183 183 0 0 0-66.9-19.1V87.5a17.5 17.5 0 1 0-35 0v36.4a183 183 0 0 0-67 19c-4.9-.6-9.9-1-14.8-1C170.3 142 105 219.6 105 315s65.3 173 145.7 173c5 0 10-.3 14.8-1a184.7 184.7 0 0 0 169 0c4.9.7 9.9 1 14.9 1 80.3 0 145.6-77.6 145.6-173s-65.3-173-145.7-173zm-220 138 27.4-40.4a11.6 11.6 0 0 1 16.4-2.7l54.7 40.3a11.3 11.3 0 0 1-7 20.3H239a11.3 11.3 0 0 1-9.6-17.5zM444 383.8l-43.7 17.5a17.7 17.7 0 0 1-13 0l-37.3-15-37.2 15a17.8 17.8 0 0 1-13 0L256 383.8a17.5 17.5 0 0 1 13-32.6l37.3 15 37.2-15c4.2-1.6 8.8-1.6 13 0l37.3 15 37.2-15a17.5 17.5 0 0 1 13 32.6zm17-86.3h-82a11.3 11.3 0 0 1-6.9-20.4l54.7-40.3a11.6 11.6 0 0 1 16.4 2.8l27.4 40.4a11.3 11.3 0 0 1-9.6 17.5z","section_parallax_elements":[],"element_pack_tile_scroll_elements":[],"ep_display_conditions":[],"ekit_all_conditions_list":[],"ekit_cursor_text_label":"Elementskit Cursor"},"elements":[{"id":"2738cf8b","elType":"widget","settings":{"editor":"

By Syril Diesta<\/a><\/em>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has refused to uphold the first-to-file rule for trademark registrations when bad faith is involved. This stance was reaffirmed in the case of Edmond Lim and Gerd Paland vs. Catalina See, G.R. No. 193569<\/strong>, promulgated on January 25th, 2023, consistent with its earlier ruling in Zuneca Pharmaceutical v. Natrapharm, Inc.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Key Clarifications On Trademark Ownership <\/strong><\/p>\n

In the Zuneca case<\/strong>, the Court emphasized that prior use no longer determines trademark ownership. Instead, ownership arises from valid registration under the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. The Edmond Lim and Gerd Paland vs. Catalina See<\/strong> decision reiterated this principle, stating that rights to a mark are acquired only through valid registration, as required by Section 122 of the Code.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Disputed Trademark Applications<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The case originated when Chai Seng Ang applied for trademarks like \u201cCROWN DEVICE,\u201d \u201cJOWIKA & DEVICE,\u201d and \u201cORO & DEVICE.\u201d These trademarks covered products such as scissors and nail cutters. Ang later assigned the trademarks to Catalina See, which sparked opposition from Lim and Paland. Both parties claimed ownership of the trademarks.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Day: October 25, 2024

Philippine Supreme Court Rejects Bad Faith in Trademark Registration