Across many industries, brands often use descriptive and generic terms to communicate their products and services—but in the Philippines, this can create significant challenges in trademark registration. Such terms may be considered non-distinctive and refused protection under the Intellectual Property Code (R.A. 8293). 

This case study examines the successful handling of a trademark application for a premier aged care provider in the Philippines. Faced with a multi-term refusal from the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL), the Petitioner engaged Duran & Duran-Schulze Law (“the Firm”) to execute a strategic clearance maneuver for the protection of the core brand while satisfying the stringent registrability requirements for distinctiveness. 

Case Summary – Resolving Trademark Registrability Issues (Use of Generic Words)

The Petitioner, a major aged care provider, was issued a Registrability Report by the IPOPHL objecting to several descriptive and generic terms within its composite mark under Class 36. 

The Firm, as the trademark registration service provider and IP legal counsel, implemented a strategic disclaimer of the non-distinctive elements, thereby isolating and securing exclusive protection for the Petitioner’s primary brand name. This pragmatic approach successfully traversed the IPOPHL Examiner’s objections and expedited the mark’s transition toward final registration.

The Mark and Its Registrability Issues

The Petitioner’s trademark application encountered a comprehensive preliminary objection from the IPOPHL Examiner, specifically grounded in Section 123.1(h) and (i) of the IP Code as detailed in the issued Registrability Report. It was contended that the mark’s constituent elements were non-distinctive in the context of retirement home services. 

As particularly identified, the terms “AGED CARE” and “SENIOR” were cited for directly describing the type of facility, while the word “CARE” was deemed descriptive of the very nature of the services provided. Furthermore, the term “SERVICES” was classified as a generic, non-source-identifying expression that must remain available for the rest of the market participants. 

The IPOPHL Examiner categorized these terms as publici juris (i.e., belonging to the public domain), arguing that allowing a single entity to monopolize or exclusively appropriate them would unfairly hinder competitors from using standard language to describe their own offerings within the same sector. 

To advance the trademark application, the IPOPHL required a formal disclaimer for these specific elements, ensuring that the legal protection would wrap around the Petitioner’s unique brand name rather than the descriptive phrases used to define the industry.

The Firm’s Legal Strategy: Strategic Disclaimers

The Firm conducted a forensic analysis of the mark and determined that the Petitioner’s primary goodwill was anchored in its unique brand name rather than the descriptive accessory terms. With this, the Petitioner was advised against a protracted and costly appeal, which would likely have failed given the inherently descriptive nature of terms like “AGED,” “CARE” and “SENIOR” in the context of aged care.

Instead, the Firm’s strategy focused on selective compliance to preserve the core mark. After securing the Petitioner’s approval, the Firm prepared and submitted a Responsive Action that formally disclaimed the exclusive right to use the cited terms apart from the mark as shown.

This tactical concession effectively “cleared” the IPOPHL Examiner’s path, removing the legal impediment while ensuring the composite mark—the unique visual and textual arrangement of the brand—remained intact. Further, this bypassed the need for substantive IP litigation, significantly reducing the Petitioner’s time-to-market and legal expenditure.

Duran & Duran-Schulze Law is an IP law firm that provides end-to-end assistance with the trademark registration process, handling filings, office actions, and publication to secure an IPOPHL Certificate of Registration efficiently and accurately.

Service Page ➤
Contact Us ➤

The Decision

The IPOPHL accepted the Responsive Action and the corresponding disclaimer entry: “No claim is made to the exclusive right to use ‘AGED CARE,’ ‘SERVICES,’ and ‘SENIOR apart from the mark as shown.” By resolving the IPOPHL Examiner’s concerns regarding the monopolization of industry-standard terms, the Firm successfully transitioned the application from a state of preliminary refusal to final approval. The mark was subsequently cleared for publication in the IPOPHL eGazette, marking the final stage before the issuance of the Certificate of Registration.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates that a successful trademark application strategy in the Philippines often requires a balance between aggressive advocacy and pragmatic procedural management. 

Duran & Duran-Schulze Law, as an experienced IP law firm, recognizes that the ultimate goal is the timely acquisition of enforceable rights. By strategically utilizing disclaimers, it protected the Petitioner’s proprietary brand identity while navigating the IPOPHL’s absolute grounds for refusal, proving that a precise legal strategy is the most efficient route to securing intellectual property assets.

More About Trademark Registration in the Philippines

Trademark registration in the Philippines is anchored in a “first-to-file” system under the Intellectual Property Code (R.A. 8293), where proprietary rights are generally granted to the entity that first applies for registration with the IPOPHL. A critical component of the registration process is the substantive examination, where an IPOPHL Examiner evaluates an application based on relative and absolute grounds for refusal. 

Generally, relative grounds concern the existence of prior rights and the likelihood of confusion, assessing whether a mark nearly resembles an earlier-filed or registered mark in a way that would mislead an “ordinary intelligent purchaser.” This involves a meticulous analysis of the dominant visual, aural, and conceptual features of the marks to prevent source-related deception.

On the other hand, absolute grounds focus on the inherent characteristics of the mark itself, regardless of existing trademarks. Under certain provisions, the IPOPHL will refuse registration if a mark lacks distinctiveness, such as generic terms, customary signs that have become standard in trade practices, or descriptive terms that merely designate the kind, quality, or geographical origin of the service.

Understanding these relative and absolute grounds is essential for any brand strategy, as they dictate the strength of a mark’s protection. While a mark containing descriptive elements may still be registered through the use of a disclaimer—where the applicant waives exclusive rights to the descriptive portions—the strongest legal protection is always afforded to arbitrary or suggestive marks that possess high inherent distinctiveness.

For legal consultations and service inquiries regarding trademark registration, revival, and maintenance in the Philippines, call us at (02) 8478-5826 (landline) or +639171940482 (mobile), or email info@duranschulze.com.