Trademark Applications assigned for examination by the Philippine Intellectual Property Office as of 31 May 2003

   As of 31 May 2003, trademark applications numbered 4-2003-0000744 and below, and which were filed not later than January 2003, have been assigned for examination by the IPO.

   Clients shall be provided with specific reports on the status of their applications.

   Nestle Philippines, Inc. ("Nestle") filed an action against Grand Dragon Enterprises, Inc. ("Grand Dragon") for unfair competition and damages with the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the IPO.

   Nestle is the Philippine licensee of Société Des Produits Nestlé S.A. ("Société"), the registrant of the word mark "SMARTIES" in the Philippines. Société is likewise the applicant for the registration of the marks "TUBE (SMARTIES)", "SMARTIES (Label)" and "DEVICE OF A TUBE" with the IPO. Grand Dragon, on the other hand, is the exclusive distributor of Meiji Seika Kaisha, Ltd. ("Meiji") in the Philippines. Meiji is the owner of the marks "MEIJI", "MARBLE CHOCOLATE" and "COFFEEBEAT". All the marks are used in connection with chocolate products sold in tube devices.

   After the presentation of its first witness, Nestle expressed its willingness to amicably settle the case. Grand Dragon agreed to Nestle's proposal.

   Consequently, Nestle and Grand Dragon, along with their respective principals, Société and Meiji, have entered into a Compromise Agreement wherein they recognized each other's right to use their respective marks, tube devices and trade dress. They also agreed to refrain from initiating any action against each other or their assignees or successors-in-interest based on the said marks, tube devices and trade dress and to continue selling their respective products in the Philippines in peaceful co-existence.

   The IPO issued on 04 December 2002 a writ of preliminary injunction against Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc.’s Dream Broadcasting System (“Dream Broadcasting”), directing Dream Broadcasting to cease and desist from its unauthorized rebroadcasting of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation’s (“ABS-CBN”) Channel 2 and Studio 23.

   Dream Broadcasting delivers digital direct-to-home (DTH) television via satellite to its subscribers. Its broadcast facility picks-up signals from program providers, including the Metro Manila broadcasts of ABS-CBN’s Channel 2 and Studio 23, which are rebroadcast via satellite directly to its subscribers all over the Philippines. Inasmuch as ABS-CBN has not authorized Dream Broadcasting’s rebroadcast of its broadcasts and the public performance and communication to the public of its television programs, ABS-CBN filed a complaint with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction before the IPO against Dream Broadcasting for violation of its intellectual property rights.

   As a broadcasting organization, ABS-CBN has the exclusive right under the Philippine Intellectual Property Code to carry out, authorize or prevent the rebroadcasting of its broadcasts. Moreover, as the copyright owner of the television programs it produces and broadcasts over Channel 2 and Studio 23, ABS-CBN has the exclusive right to carry out, authorize and prevent the public performance and the communication to the public of the television programs it produces.

   The unauthorized rebroadcasting by Dream Broadcasting of the Metro Manila broadcasts of ABS-CBN’s Channel 2 and Studio 23 to its subscribers all over the Philippines creates competition between ABS-CBN’s Metro Manila and regional signals for viewership and, hence, has adversely affected the business operations of ABS-CBN’s regional television stations which largely depend on regional and provincial advertisers for its income.

   In August 2002, the Philippine Congress passed into law Republic Act No. 9168, otherwise known as the Philippine Plant Varieties Protection Act of 2002 (the “PPVPA”). The PPVPA was enacted to encourage the development of new plant varieties by granting plant breeders exclusive production, reproduction, sales and marketing rights, among others, with respect to their new plant varieties. Such rights are granted with the issuance of a Certificate of Plant Variety Protection (the “Certificate”) by the National Plant Variety Protection Registrar established under the PPVPA.

   To be entitled to protection under a Certificate, a plant variety must necessarily comply with the requirements of novelty, distinctness, uniformity and stability as defined in the PPVPA. However, the novelty requirement does not apply to varieties sold, offered for sale or disposed of for five (5) years prior to the PPVPA’s passage, provided that the application for a Certificate is filed not later than 07 June 2003.

   Under the Certificate, trees and vines are entitled to a period of protection of twenty-five (25) years from the date of the grant of such Certificate, while all other types of plants are entitled to protection of twenty (20) years. However, applicants are entitled to provisional protection during the period between the publication of the application and the grant of the Certificate. Protection under the Certificate is extended to the plant variety subject of the application (the “protected variety”), as well as to essentially derived varieties, varieties not clearly distinct from the protected variety, and varieties whose production requires the repeated use of the protected variety.

   Applications for a Certificate are subject to the principles of national treatment, priority date, co-ownership, and the first-to-file rule.

If you would prefer not to receive future copies of the IP Philippines newsletter, simply reply to: unsubscribenewsletter@cvclaw.com

If you would prefer to receive future copies of the IP Philippines newsletter in text format (and not HTML), please e-mail us at: updatedetails@cvclaw.com