IP Infringement (Trademark, Patent, and Copyright) in the Philippines

Intellectual property (IP) rights function as intangible assets that allow creators and owners to benefit from their own specialized labor or investment. For instance, trademarks protect brand identity and consumer trust, copyrights safeguard original literary and artistic expressions, and patents provide a time-bound monopoly for novel and industrially applicable technical solutions. 

In the Philippines, the legal backbone for these protections is the Intellectual Property Code (R.A. 8293), which streamlines the country’s IP system with international standards and strikes a balance between the private interests of creators and the public’s right to access information. However, the true tests of these legal protections arise when the boundaries of exclusivity are crossed, leading to disputes over ownership and unauthorized use.    

What is IP Infringement?

Intellectual property (IP) infringement is the unauthorized exercise of any exclusive right granted to a patentee, a trademark owner, or a copyright holder under Republic Act No. 8293, as amended.

It constitutes a statutory trespass upon registered or protected intellectual property, occurring the moment an unauthorized person or entity reproduces, uses, sells, or communicates the protected work or mark in a manner likely to cause confusion, economic prejudice, or the misappropriation of the owner’s innovation.

Trademark Infringement

As defined under Section 121.1 of the IP Code, marks are visible signs capable of distinguishing the goods (trademarks) or services (service marks) of an enterprise and include stamped or marked containers of goods.  

Building upon this definition, Section 147.1 provides that the owner of a registered mark holds the exclusive right to prevent all third parties from using identical or similar signs or containers for identical or similar goods or services in trade without consent. In this regard, the restriction specifically applies where such use creates a likelihood of confusion—a legal presumption that automatically arises when an identical sign is used for identical goods or services. Thus, trademark infringement is legally consummated upon the commission of any such act, regardless of whether an actual sale ever eventuates. 

In terms of legal remedies, Sections 156 to 158 provide that a trademark owner may recover damages based on lost profits, the infringer’s actual gains, or a percentage of gross sales, with the potential of doubled damages if intent to defraud is proven (Secs. 156.1, 156.3). Apart from monetary awards, the court may grant injunctions, impound sales records, and order the destruction of infringing goods under Sections 156.2 and 156.4. 

Beyond the civil and administrative sanctions, a criminal penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years to five (5) years and a fine ranging from PHP 50,000 to PHP 200,000 may be imposed on any person guilty of trademark infringement under Articles 188 and 189 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.  

In Gloria Maris Shark’s Fin Restaurant, Inc. vs. Pacifico Q. Lim, G.R. No. 264919-21 (05-20-2024), the Supreme Court ordered the cancellation of trademarks registered by the respondent Lim due to evident bad faith, defined as registering a mark with prior knowledge of its creation or use by another. 

As a fiduciary, Lim misappropriated the “Gloria Maris” name, which had been used by the corporation since 1994, to benefit his separate ventures. The Court rules that a director cannot legally compete with their own company using its own brand in an act of unfair competition. As a result, Lim’s fraudulent registrations were voided, as the law refuses to allow the doctrine of laches to shield a registration born from a breach of trust and deceptive practices.   

Copyright Infringement

Copyrighted works, as described under Section 172.1, are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain that are protected from the sole moment of their creation, regardless of the mode or form of expression (Section 172.2). Such works encompass a broad spectrum, including books, musical compositions, paintings, and computer programs. 

By operation of Section 177, copyright holders possess exclusive economic rights to control the exploitation of their work. Specifically, they are empowered to authorize or prohibit the reproduction of a work, its transformation through adaptation, and its public distribution or performance (Sections 177.1-177.7).

Copyright infringement is thus consummated when any person or entity exercises these reserved rights without valid authorization or legal excuse (e.g., fair use). Unlike trademark law, which hinges on consumer confusion, copyright infringement is primarily determined by the unauthorized taking of the protected expression, regardless of whether the infringer acted with the intent to compete or deceive.

Pursuant to Sections 216 and 217, copyright infringement triggers both comprehensive civil remedies and escalated criminal penalties. In terms of civil remedies, copyright owners may seek injunctions, actual damages (i.e., including the infringer’s profits), and destruction of infringing materials. Moral and exemplary damages, even in cases of acquittal, may also be awarded by the court. For criminal liability, Section 217 imposes a tiered penalty system, where offenses carry both imprisonment and fines. These penalties extend to those who aid, abet, or possess infringing copies for trade with knowledge of their illicit nature.   

In Habana vs. Robles, G.R. No. 131522 (07-19-1999), the Supreme Court ruled that copyright infringement occurs when an author’s intellectual labor is substantially appropriated to produce an “injurious effect.” In its ruling, the Court rejected the defense that similarities were merely due to a shared academic background or syllabus. Instead, it held that while grammar rules are universal, the use of identical examples and styles constituted clear “indicia” of copying. Moreover, the respondent’s bad faith was highlighted by her “pharisaical” denial of the claim while simultaneously pulling the infringing books from circulation and scrubbing the copied portions in subsequent editions.