Cases of Intellectual Property in the Philippines

We usually understand intellectual property as totality of rights for any intellectual activity such as works, inventions and the like and means of individualization such as trade marks, company names and others.

The Philippines has its RA 8293 which is known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines which protects the result of a creative thought of an individual. There are also recorded cases of violation of the said law and some of those were the Starbucks and Philippine Frap Case and the

Starbucks Coffee Co. won a trademark case against the Cafe De Manila Coorporation, which tried to register the name “Frap” for a marketing slogan. Starbucks asserted that Cafe de Manila should not be allowed to register the term “FRAP” since it is the prefix and the dominant element of its registered mark “FRAPUCCINO.” As stated at Section 123 (d) of Republic Act 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. The court decided to let Starbucks sustained its trademark and the documents of the subject trademark together with the copy of the decision were returned to the Bureau of Trademarks.

Another case of Intellectual Property was the Catibajan and La Concepcion College, Inc. case. Where the school copied the work books and were reproduced and sold to its students which is originally the work of Raymund Catabijan. The court ordered the respondent to pay the complainant P8,450 for the actual damages, P500,00 for exemplary damages and P100,000 for the Attorney’s fees and litigation cost. Moreover, an order of condemnation and seizure of all copies of the subject infringing books in the possession of the respondent.

There is really importance of protecting one’s creative work of mind. From those cases presented above it would be a learning for everybody to abide the laws and recognize and give due credit to the works of others.

 

 

 

References:

Starbucks Corporation v. Cafe De Manila Corporation. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.federislaw.com.ph/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/STARBUCKS-CORPORATION-vs.-CAFFEE-DE-MANILA-CORP.-IPC14-2012-00057-September-16-2014.pdf

Catabijan v. La Concepcion College, Inc. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.federislaw.com.ph/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RAYMUND-STA.-MARIA-CATABIJAN-doing-business-under-the-name-and-style-ST.-MATTHEWS-PUBLISHING-vs.-LA-CONCEPCION-COLLEGE-INC.-IPV-No.-10-2009-00009-February-28-2013.pdf

Newsbytes.ph. (2014). Bulacan school ordered to pay P608,405 for copyright infringement. Retrived from http://newsbytes.ph/2014/11/08/bulacan-school-ordered-to-pay-p608450-for-copyright-infringement/

ABS-CBN News. (2014). Starbucks wins Philippine case over ‘Frap’ trademark – report. Retrieved from http://news.abs-cbn.com/business/09/26/14/starbucks-wins-philippine-case-over-frap-trademark-report

Federislaw. (2014). Starbucks Wins its Fight Against “Frap” Trademark in the Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.federislaw.com.ph/starbucks-wins-frap-trademark-philippines/

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s