[G.R. No.
211850. September 8, 2020.]
ZUNECA PHARMACEUTICAL, AKRAM
ARAIN AND/OR VENUS ARAIN, M.D., AND STYLE OF ZUNECA PHARMACEUTICAL, petitioners,
vs. NATRAPHARM, INC., respondent.
DECISION
Businesses generally thrive or perish depending on their
reputation among customers. Logically, consumers gravitate towards products and
services they believe are of a certain quality and provide perceived benefits.
Thus, entrepreneurs and businesses actively seek to set apart their reputation
and goodwill from every other enterprise with the goal of being the top-of-mind
choice for the consumers. As signs differentiating the wares or services
offered by enterprises, trademarks serve this purpose of making the products
and services of each business uniquely memorable. Trademarks have several
functions: they indicate the origin or ownership of the articles or services in
which they are used; they guarantee that the articles or services come up to a
certain standard of quality; and they advertise the articles and services they
symbolize. Indeed, the goodwill of a business, as
symbolized and distinguished by its trademarks, helps ensure that the
enterprise stands out, stays afloat, and possibly flourish amidst the sea of
commercial activity where the consumers' continued patronage is a lifebuoy that
may determine life or death.
Faced with this intrinsic need to survive, enterprises are
becoming increasingly aware of the need to protect their goodwill and their
brands. The State, too, is interested in the protection of the intellectual
property of enterprises and individuals who have exerted effort and money to
create beneficial products and services. In line with this, and considering the
extent to which intellectual property rights impact on the viability of
businesses, a common controversy in the field of intellectual property law is
to whom these rights pertain.
In this case of first impression, this is precisely the issue at
hand. This case concerns trademarks which are used for different types of
medicines but are admitted by both parties to be confusingly similar.
Exacerbating this controversy on the issue of ownership, however, are
conflicting interpretations on the rules on the acquisition of ownership over
trademarks, muddled by jurisprudential precedents which applied principles
inconsistent with the current law. Thus, in resolving this issue, the Court needed
to examine and ascertain the meaning and intent behind the rules that affect
trademark ownership.
Facts
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Petition)
under Rule 45 with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or
Preliminary Injunction filed by petitioners Zuneca Pharmaceutical, Akram Arain
and/or Venus Arain, M.D., and Style of Zuneca Pharmaceutical (collectively,
Zuneca) assailing the Decision dated October 3, 2013 and Resolution dated March
19, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 99787. The CA denied
Zuneca's appeal and affirmed the Decision dated December 2, 2011 of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 93 (RTC) in Civil Case No. Q-07-61561, which
found Zuneca liable for trademark infringement under Sections 155 to 155.2 of Republic
Act No. (R.A.) 8293, also known as the Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines (IP Code), and awarded damages in favor of respondent
Natrapharm, Inc. (Natrapharm).
Petitioner Zuneca Pharmaceutical has been engaged in the
importation, marketing, and sale of various kinds of medicines and drugs in the
Philippines since 1999. It imports generic drugs from Pakistan and markets them
in the Philippines using different brand names. Among the products it has been
selling is a drug called carbamazepine under the brand name
"ZYNAPS," which is an anti-convulsant used to control all types of
seizure disorders of varied causes like epilepsy. Petitioner Venus S. Arain,
M.D. (Dr. Arain) was the proprietor of Zuneca Pharmaceutical before Zuneca,
Inc. was incorporated. Akram Arain, meanwhile, is the husband of Dr. Arain, who
later on became the President of Zuneca, Inc.
Natrapharm, on the other hand, is a domestic corporation engaged
in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of pharmaceutical
products for human relief. One of the products being manufactured and sold by
Natrapharm is citicoline under the trademark "ZYNAPSE," which
is indicated for the treatment of cerebrovascular disease or stroke. The
trademark "ZYNAPSE" was registered with the Intellectual Property
Office of the Philippines (IPO) on September 24, 2007 and is covered by
Certificate of Trademark Registration No. 4-2007-005596.
On November 29, 2007, Natrapharm filed with the RTC a Complaint
against Zuneca for Injunction, Trademark Infringement, Damages and Destruction
with Prayer for TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction, alleging that Zuneca's
"ZYNAPS" is confusingly similar to its registered trademark
"ZYNAPSE" and the resulting likelihood of confusion is dangerous
because the marks cover medical drugs intended for different types of
illnesses. Consequently, Natrapharm sought to enjoin Zuneca from using "ZYNAPS"
or other variations thereof, in addition to its demand for Zuneca's payment of
Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) in damages; Five Million Pesos
(P5,000,000.00) in exemplary damages; and Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P300,000.00) as attorney's fees, expenses of litigation, and costs of suit.
Further, it prayed that all infringing goods, labels, signs, etc. of Zuneca be
impounded and destroyed without compensation.
In its Answer (With Compulsory Counterclaim and Prayer for
Preliminary Injunction), Zuneca claimed that it has been selling carbamazepine
under the mark "ZYNAPS" since 2004 after securing a Certificate of
Product Registration on April 15, 2003 from the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD,
now Food and Drug Administration). It alleged that it was impossible for
Natrapharm not to have known the existence of "ZYNAPS" before the
latter's registration of "ZYNAPSE" because Natrapharm had promoted
its products, such as "Zobrixol" and "Zcure," in the same
publications where Zuneca had advertised "ZYNAPS." Further, Zuneca
pointed out that both Natrapharm and Zuneca had advertised their respective
products in identical conventions. Despite its knowledge of prior use by Zuneca
of "ZYNAPS," Natrapharm had allegedly fraudulently appropriated the
"ZYNAPSE" mark by registering the same with the IPO. As the prior
user, Zuneca argued that it is the owner of "ZYNAPS" and the
continued use by Natrapharm of "ZYNAPSE" causes it grave and
irreparable damage.
On the basis of such arguments, Zuneca insisted that it is
Natrapharm which should be liable for damages. On this score, Zuneca prayed
that its counterclaims against Natrapharm be granted by the RTC, namely, the
cancellation of Natrapharm's "ZYNAPSE" registration; the prohibition
of Natrapharm from manufacturing, advertising, selling, and distributing
"ZYNAPSE" products; the destruction of "ZYNAPSE" products
and labels; the payment of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00), or double such
amount, in the discretion of the court, as damages for fraudulent registration;
and the payment of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) as moral damages, Two
Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) as exemplary damages, Three Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P300,000.00) as attorney's fees, and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00)
as costs of suit.
Subsequently, after a summary hearing, the prayer for TRO was
denied. The preliminary injunction and counter preliminary injunction prayed
for by the parties were likewise rejected.
As summarized by the CA, the following evidence were presented
during the trial:
First to testify on the part of Natrapharm was
Cristina Luna Ravelo who is the vice president for marketing of Natrapharm.
According to her, she was the one who conceptualized the name
"ZYNAPSE"[,] taking it from "Synapse" which was a
publication she sponsored when she was the product manager of [the Philippine]
Neurological Association. Further[,] "Synapse" is a neurological term
referring to the junction between 2 nerves where nerve signals are transmitted,
hence appropriate for a medicine for stroke. Afterward[s], the witness verified
using the research tool IMS-PPI, which lists the pharmaceutical products
marketed in the Philippines, any other cerebroprotective products (CO4A) that
[are] confusingly similar with "ZYNAPSE." Finding none in the list
covering the period of the fourth quarter of 2004 up to the first quarter of
2007, the witness proceeded with the registration of "ZYNAPSE" with
the IPO. After the IPO issued a [certificate of trademark registration], the
BFAD, in turn, released a Certificate of Product Listing for
"ZYNAPSE." The witness likewise revealed that she was informed in
late September 2007 of the existence of "ZYNAPS" after a sales
personnel had informed her of such drug being sold in Visayas and Mindanao.
After learning this, the witness brought the matter to Dr. Arain, but no
resolution was agreed upon by the parties due to a difference in opinion.
On cross-examination, the witness averred that
she did not check with drugstores and other publications for similar brand
names as "ZYNAPSE," as she only relied with [the] IMS[-PPI]. Further,
the witness explained that the formulation of the drug "ZYNAPSE" is
owned by Patriot Pharmaceutical [(Patriot)] and this formulation is marketed by
Natrapharm through the brand name "ZYNAPSE."
On re-direct, the witness clarified that she
did not conduct any field survey to find if there [we]re similar brand names as
"ZYNAPSE," because of the difficulty posed by inquiring from each [of
the 3,000 to 4,000 drug stores] nationwide. In addition, it was x x x
Natrapharm's strategy to remain quiet about [its] product.
Next to testify was Jeffrey Silang, the Analyst
Programmer of Natrapharm. His function [was] to create a system and generate
reports for accounting, inventory and sales for Natrapharm. The witness stated
that Patriot is a mere supplier of Natrapharm and that Natrapharm has other
suppliers. The witness then identified a sales report which indicate[d] that WMMC
Hospital bought several quantities of "ZYNAPSE" products from
Natrapharm. Also included in said report [was] an entry "non-psyche
Patriot" which represent[ed] its supplier.
On cross-examination, the witness reiterated
that Patriot supplies the raw materials to Natrapharm. Natrapharm, in turn,
repackage[s] these materials to bear the brand "ZYNAPSE." The witness
also admitted that he d[id] not know exactly why "ZYNAPSE" is
qualified as non-psyche, as he is a mere Information Technology expert.
Last to testify was Atty. Caesar J. Poblador
who identified his Judicial Affidavit dated [November 4, 2009] which
contain[ed] the several invoices charged by his law firm to Natrapharm in
consideration of the law firm's legal service.
On the part of [Zuneca], Dr. Arain took the
stand and identified her Supplemental Affidavit dated [February 12, 2010]. On
said Affidavit, it [was] stated that Dr. Arain established Zuneca
[Pharmaceutical] in 1999. Subsequently, [Zuneca, Inc.] was incorporated on
[January 8, 2008] and [it] took over the business of Zuneca Pharmaceutical.
Verily, among the products that Zuneca sells is [carbamazepine] with the
brand name "ZYNAPS" for which Zuneca applied for a Certificate of
Product Registration (CPR) from BFAD. On [April 15, 2003], Zuneca was able to
obtain a CPR over its [carbamazepine] product valid for five (5) years
which was [then] renewed for another five (5) years or until [April 15, 2013].
Zuneca then started importing [carbamazepine] "ZYNAPS" in
December 2003 and began promoting, marketing and selling them in 2004. In order
to promote "ZYNAPS," Zuneca advertised it through paid publications
such as the (1) Philippine Pharmaceutical Directory or PPD; (2) PPD's Better
Pharmacy; and (3) PPD's Philippine Pharmaceutical Directory Review (PPDr).
Apparently, said publications also cover[ed] the different products of
Natrapharm and its affiliate [Patriot]. Allegedly, the two companies
(Natrapharm and Patriot) participated as partners in a medical symposi[um] on
[October 22 to 23, 2009].
When asked why she did not register her
trademark with the IPO, x x x [Dr.] Arain answered that she could not find the
time because of the illness of her father.
On cross-examination, Dr. Arain testified that
she remained as an adviser of Zuneca, Inc., after its incorporation. She then
told her husband, who became the President of Zuneca, Inc. and the vice
president about the dispute with Natrapharm. Further, the witness admitted that
she did not secure an advertising page for "ZYNAPS" in the [PPD].
Last to testify was Emmanuel Latin, the
president of Medicomm Pacific (Medicomm). The witness attested that Medicomm is
engaged in the publication of lists of drugs which it gives to doctors as
reference in the preparation of prescriptions for their patients. The witness
then enumerated their publications as PPD, PPDr, and PPD's Better Pharmacy
which the company publishes annually and distributes to doctors for free.
According to the witness, several years ago, Medicomm invited pharmaceutical
companies to list with its publications for free. Thereafter, the said
pharmaceutical companies started advertising with Medicomm for a fee which then
became the source of revenues for Medicomm. The witness also affirmed that
Zuneca, Natrapharm and Patriot are advertisers of PPD. However, the witness
admitted that "ZYNAPSE" [was] not listed in the PPD.
The RTC Ruling
After trial, the RTC issued its Decision dated December 2, 2011,
the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [Natrapharm] and against
[Zuneca].
[Zuneca], jointly and severally, [is] hereby
directed to pay [Natrapharm] the following amounts, to wit:
One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as damages;
One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as exemplary damages;
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) as attorney's fees; and
the Costs.
[Zuneca is] further enjoined from henceforth
using ["ZYNAPS"] or any other variations thereto which are
confusingly similar to [Natrapharm's "ZYNAPSE."]
It is likewise ordered that all infringing
goods, labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles and
advertisements in possession of [Zuneca], bearing the registered mark or any
reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colourable imitation thereof, all plates,
molds, matrices and other means of making the same, implements, machines and
other items related to the conduct, and predominantly used, by [Zuneca] in such
infringing activities, be disposed of outside the channels of commerce or
destroyed, without compensation.
The counterclaim of [Zuneca] is DISMISSED for
lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
The RTC ruled that the first filer in good faith defeats a first
user in good faith who did not file any application for registration. Hence,
Natrapharm, as the first registrant, had trademark rights over
"ZYNAPSE" and it may prevent others, including Zuneca, from
registering an identical or confusingly similar mark. Moreover, the RTC ruled
that there was insufficient evidence that Natrapharm had registered the mark
"ZYNAPSE" in bad faith. The fact that "ZYNAPS" and Natrapharm's
other brands were listed in the Philippine Pharmaceutical Directory (PPD) was
not sufficient to show bad faith since Zuneca's own witness admitted to not
having complete knowledge of the drugs listed in the PPD. Natrapharm should
also therefore be accorded the benefit of the doubt that it did not have
complete knowledge of the other brand names listed in the PPD. Further,
following the use of the dominancy test, the RTC likewise observed that
"ZYNAPS" was confusingly similar to "ZYNAPSE." To protect
the public from the disastrous effects of erroneous prescription and mistaken
dispensation, the confusion between the two drugs must be eliminated.
The CA Ruling
Aggrieved, Zuneca appealed the RTC's Decision to the CA, raising
the following issues: (1) whether the RTC erred in ruling that the
first-to-file trademark registrant in good faith defeats the right of the prior
user in good faith, hence, Natrapharm has the right to prevent Zuneca from
using or registering the trademark "ZYNAPS" or marks similar or
identical thereto; (2) whether the RTC erred in finding that Natrapharm was in
good faith when it registered the trademark "ZYNAPSE" for citicoline;
(3) whether the RTC erred in ruling that Zuneca is liable for trademark
infringement and therefore liable for damages and attorney's fees and should be
enjoined from the use of the trademark "ZYNAPS" and marks similar
thereto, and that Zuneca's goods and materials in connection with the trademark
"ZYNAPS" must be disposed outside the channels of trade or destroyed
without compensation; and (4) whether the RTC erred in dismissing Zuneca's
counterclaims for lack of merit.
In a Decision dated October 3, 2013, the CA denied Zuneca's appeal
for lack of merit, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit, and the
assailed decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
93 dated [December 2, 2011] is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
In affirming the RTC, the CA stated that registration, not prior
use, is the mode of acquiring ownership of a trademark. The mark must be
registered in order to acquire ownership and the failure to do so renders the
non-registering user susceptible to a charge of infringement. Moreover, those
who intend to register their mark need not look at the other marks used by
other persons but must confine only their search to the marks found in the
database of the IPO. If there are no similar or identical marks, the mark
should be registered as a matter of course. Hence, as the registered owner of
the trademark "ZYNAPSE," Natrapharm has every right to prevent all
other parties from using identical or similar marks in their business, as
provided in the IP Code. Further, only the registered owner of the
trademark may file a civil action against the infringer and seek injunction and
damages.
On the issue of good faith, the CA affirmed the findings of the
RTC that Natrapharm had no knowledge of the existence of "ZYNAPS"
prior to the registration of "ZYNAPSE." The CA also found that the
testimony of Natrapharm's witness Cristina Luna Ravelo (Ravelo) showed that
Natrapharm was able to register "ZYNAPSE" after it was cleared using
the databases of the IPO and the BFAD. The CA ruled that good faith is presumed
and it was incumbent on Zuneca to show that Natrapharm was in bad faith when it
registered "ZYNAPSE," which Zuneca failed to show. The CA stated that
it was not enough that Zuneca and Natrapharm had exhibited in the same
convention two years prior to the registration of "ZYNAPSE" and ruled
that it was unlikely that the participants would remember each and every
medicine or drug exhibited during said convention. Besides, Zuneca failed to
show that the people who had attended the convention on behalf of Natrapharm
were also the ones who were responsible for the creation of "ZYNAPSE"
or that they were still connected to Natrapharm at the time the
"ZYNAPSE" mark was registered with the IPO in 2007.
In a Resolution dated March 19, 2014, the CA denied Zuneca's
motion for reconsideration.
Hence, Zuneca filed the instant Petition.
In compliance with the Court's Resolution dated June 2, 2014,
Natrapharm filed its Comment. Zuneca thereafter filed its Reply to Natrapharm's
Comment. In a Resolution dated June 6, 2016, the Court required each party to
file their respective Memoranda. In compliance with this, Natrapharm filed its
Memorandum dated September 6, 2016 and Zuneca filed its Memorandum dated
September 16, 2016.
The Issues
As stated by Zuneca, the issues for the Court's resolution are as
follows:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE [CA] ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
RTC'S RULING THAT THE FIRST-TO-FILE TRADEMARK REGISTRANT IN GOOD FAITH DEFEATS
THE RIGHT OF THE PRIOR USER IN GOOD FAITH, HENCE, [NATRAPHARM] HAS THE RIGHT TO
PREVENT [ZUNECA] FROM USING/REGISTERING THE TRADEMARK "ZYNAPS" OR
[MARKS] SIMILAR [OR] IDENTICAL THERETO.
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE [CA] ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
RTC'S FINDING THAT [NATRAPHARM] WAS IN GOOD FAITH WHEN IT REGISTERED THE
TRADEMARK "ZYNAPSE" FOR [CITICOLINE].
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE [CA] ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
RTC'S RULING THAT [ZUNECA IS] LIABLE FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND [IS] THUS
LIABLE FOR DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AND [IS] ENJOINED FROM THE USE OF THE
TRADEMARK "ZYNAPS" AND MARKS SIMILAR THERETO; AND THAT ALL [OF
ZUNECA'S] GOODS AND MATERIALS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRADEMARK
"ZYNAPS" MUST BE DISPOSED OUTSIDE THE CHANNELS OF TRADE OR DESTROYED
WITHOUT COMPENSATION.
IV
WHETHER OR NOT THE [CA] ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
RTC'S DISMISSAL OF [ZUNECA'S] COUNTERCLAIMS FOR LACK OF MERIT.
V
WHETHER OR NOT THE [CA] ERRED IN RULING THAT
[ZUNECA], FOR FAILURE TO REGISTER "ZYNAPS" AND FOR FAILURE TO OPPOSE
[NATRAPHARM'S] APPLICATION FOR "ZYNAPSE"[, IS] BARRED BY LACHES AND
[IS] DEEMED TO HAVE ABANDONED [ITS] TRADEMARK.
It bears stressing at this juncture that the confusing similarity
of the "ZYNAPS" and "ZYNAPSE" marks was admitted by both
parties. The resolution of this controversy necessitates determining who has
the right to prevent the other party from using its confusingly similar mark.
Thus, the following questions must be answered: (1) How is ownership over a
trademark acquired? (2) Assuming that both parties owned their respective
marks, do the rights of the first-to-file registrant Natrapharm defeat the
rights of the prior user Zuneca, i.e., may Natrapharm prevent Zuneca
from using its mark? (3) If so, should Zuneca be held liable for trademark
infringement?
The Court's Ruling
Under the law, the owner of the mark shall have the exclusive
right to prevent all third parties not having the owner's consent from using
identical or similar marks for identical or similar goods or services where
such use would result in a likelihood of confusion.
Further, in Prosource International, Inc. v. Horphag
Research Management SA, the Court held that, to establish trademark
infringement, the following elements must be proven: (1) the trademark being
infringed is registered in the IPO; (2) the trademark is reproduced,
counterfeited, copied, or colorably imitated by the infringer; (3) the
infringing mark is used in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or
advertising of any goods, business, or services; or the infringing mark is
applied to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, or
advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods,
business, or services; (4) the use or application of the infringing mark is
likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to
the goods or services themselves or as to the source or origin of such goods or
services or the identity of such business; and (5) it is without the consent of
the trademark owner or the assignee thereof.
Thus, to determine the prevailing party in this controversy and
the existence of trademark infringement, the Court first has to rule on the
issue of acquisition of ownership of marks by both parties.
I. How trademark
ownership is acquired
The RTC and the CA both ruled that, having been the first to
register in good faith, Natrapharm is the owner of the trademark
"ZYNAPSE" and it has the right to prevent others, including Zuneca,
from registering and/or using a confusingly similar mark.
Zuneca, however, contends that, as the first user, it had already
owned the "ZYNAPS" mark prior to Natrapharm's registration and,
invoking Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. v. Abyadang 68 (Berris)
and E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc., et al. v. Shen Dar Electricity and
Machinery Co., Ltd. (E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc.), its
rights prevail over the rights of Natrapharm, the first registrant of a
confusingly similar mark.
The Court holds that Zuneca's argument has no merit because: (i)
the language of the IP Code provisions clearly conveys the rule that
ownership of a mark is acquired through registration; (ii) the intention of the
lawmakers was to abandon the rule that ownership of a mark is acquired through
use; and (iii) the rule on ownership used in Berris and E.Y.
Industrial Sales, Inc. is inconsistent with the IP Code regime
of acquiring ownership through registration.
i. Under the IP Code, ownership of a mark
is acquired through registration
Special laws have historically determined and provided for the
acquisition of ownership over marks, and a survey thereof shows that ownership
of marks is acquired either through registration or use.
Spanish Royal Decree of October 26, 1888
As early as the Spanish regime, trademarks were already protected
in the Philippines. The Real Decreto de 26 de octubre de 1888 or the
Spanish Royal Decree of October 26, 1888 provided for the concession and use of
Philippine trademarks as follows:
Art. 4. Todo
fabricante, comerciante, agricultor ó industrial de otra clase, que individual
ó colectivamente desee usar alguna marca para distinguir los productos de una
fábrica, los objetos de comercio, las primeras materias agrícolas ú otras cualesquiera,
ó la ganadería, y lo mismo los que deseen conservar la propiedad de dibujos y
modelos industriales, tendrán que solicitar el certificado de propiedad con
arreglo á las prescripciones de este decreto.
El que carezca de dicho
certifcado, no podrá usar marcas ó distintivo alguno para los productos de su
industria, ni evitar que otros empleen sus estampaciones ó dibujos
industriales.
xxx xxx xxx
Art. 21. El derecho á
la propiedad de las marcas, dibujos, y modelos industriales que esta
disposición reconoce, se adquirirá por el certificado y el cumplimiento de las
demás disposiciones que la misma determina.
Based on the above provisions, one who wished to own and use a
trademark had to request for a certificate of ownership in accordance with the
royal decree. The use of unregistered trademarks was prohibited. In other
words, because trademarks could not be used without first securing the
necessary certificate, the ownership of trademarks under the Spanish Royal
Decree of October 26, 1888 was acquired only by means of registration.
Act No. 666
The manner of acquiring ownership over trademarks changed during
the American period. In 1903, Act No. 666 was enacted, which provided
that the ownership of a mark was acquired through actual use thereof. The
pertinent provisions of said law are reproduced below:
SECTION 2. Anyone who produces or deals in
merchandise of any kind by actual use thereof in trade may
appropriate to his exclusive use a trade-mark, not so appropriated by
another, to designate the origin or ownership thereof: Provided, That a designation
or part of a designation which relates only to the name, quality, or
description of the merchandise or geographical place of its production or
origin cannot be the subject of a trade-mark.
SECTION 3. The ownership or possession
of a trade-mark, heretofore or hereafter appropriated, as in the foregoing
section provided, shall be recognized and protected in the same manner and
to the same extent, as are other property rights known to the law. To this end
any person entitled to the exclusive use of a trade-mark to designate the
origin or ownership of goods he has made or deals in may recover damages in a
civil action from any person who has sold goods of a similar kind, bearing such
trade-mark, and the measure of the damages suffered, at the option of the
complaining party, shall be either the reasonable profit which the complaining
party would have made had the defendant not sold the goods with the trade-mark
aforesaid, or the profit which the defendant actually made out of the sale of
the goods with the trade-mark, and in cases where actual intent to mislead the
public or to defraud the owner of the trade-mark shall be shown, in the
discretion of the court, the damages may be doubled. The complaining party,
upon proper showing, may have a preliminary injunction, restraining the
defendant temporarily from use of the trade-mark pending the hearing, to be
granted or dissolved in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, and
such injunction upon final hearing, if the complainant's property in the
trade-mark and the defendant's violation thereof shall be fully established, in
these Islands, nor shall it be necessary to show that the trade-mark shall be
made perpetual, and this injunction shall be part of the judgment for damages
to be rendered in the same cause as above provided.
SECTION 4. In order to justify recovery
for violation of trade-mark rights in the preceding sections defined, it shall not
be necessary to show that the trade-marks have been registered under the royal
decree of eighteen hundred and eight-eight, providing for registration of
trade-marks in the Philippine Islands, in force during the Spanish sovereignty
in these Islands, nor shall it be necessary to show that the trade mark has
been registered under this Act. It shall be sufficient to invoke protection
of his property in a trade-mark if the party complaining shall prove that he
has used the trade-mark claimed by him upon his goods a sufficient
length of time so that the use of the trade-mark by another would be an
injury to him and calculated to deceive the public into the belief that the
goods of that other were the goods manufactured or dealt in by the complaining
party. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
R.A. 166
On June 20, 1947, R.A. 166 (Trademark Law) was
enacted and approved. It is worth noting that the Trademark Law, as
clarified through its subsequent amendment, explicitly stated that actual use
was a prerequisite for the ownership of marks.
Section 4 of the Trademark Law stated that the owner of the
mark had the right to register the same. Despite not categorically defining who
the owner of the mark was, the same section also provided that one could not
register a mark that was previously used and not abandoned by another.
Consequently, prior use and non-abandonment determined the ownership of the
mark because it effectively barred someone else from registering the mark and
representing himself to be the owner thereof. In other words, the only person
who was entitled to register the mark, and therefore be considered as the owner
thereof, was the person who first used and who did not abandon the mark, viz.:
SECTION 4. Registration of Trade-marks,
Trade-names and Service-marks. — The owner of a trade-mark,
trade-name or service-mark used to distinguish his goods, business or services
from the goods, business or services of others shall have the right to
register the same, unless it:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Consists of or comprises a mark
or trade-name which so resembles a mark or trade-name registered in the
Philippines or a mark or trade-name previously used in the
Philippines by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when
applied to or used in connection with the goods, business or services of the
applicant, to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchases[.] (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)
Civil Code
When the Civil Code took effect in 1950, it included the
rule that the owner of the trademark was the person, corporation, or firm
registering the same, but said rule was made subject to the provisions of
special laws. Hence, the manner of acquiring ownership was still through actual
use because the special law in effect at that time was the Trademark Law,
viz.:
CHAPTER 3
TRADEMARKS AND TRADENAMES
ART. 520. A trademark or tradename duly
registered in the proper government bureau or office is owned by and pertains
to the person, corporation, or firm registering the same, subject to the
provisions of special laws. (Emphasis supplied)
Amendment to the Trademark Law
In 1951, the Trademark Law was amended by R.A. 638,
which added Section 2-A, among others. As previously mentioned, this amendment
explicitly provided that ownership over a mark was acquired through actual use,
viz.:
Sec. 2-A. Ownership of trade-marks,
trade-names and service-marks; how acquired. — Anyone who
lawfully produces or deals in merchandise of any kind or who engages in any
lawful business, or who renders any lawful service in commerce, by actual
use thereof in manufacture or trade, in business, and in the service
rendered, may appropriate to his exclusive use a trade-mark, a trade-name,
or a service-mark not so appropriated by another, to distinguish his
merchandise, business or service from the merchandise, business or services of
others. The ownership or possession of a trade-mark, trade-name, service-mark,
heretofore or hereafter appropriated, as in this section provided, shall
be recognized and protected in the same manner and to the same extent as are other
property rights known to the law. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
IP Code
Forty-seven years later, upon the effectivity of the IP Code
on January 1, 1998, the manner of acquiring ownership of trademarks reverted to
registration. This is expressed in Section 122 of the IP Code, viz.:
SECTION 122. How Marks are Acquired.
— The rights in a mark shall be acquired through registration made
validly in accordance with the provisions of this law. (Sec. 2-A, R.A.
No. 166a) (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Related to this, Section 123.1 (d) of the IP Code expresses
the first-to-file rule as follows:
SECTION 123. Registrability. —
123.1. A mark cannot be registered if it:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Is identical with a registered
mark belonging to a different proprietor or a mark
with an earlier filing or priority date, in respect of:
(i) The same goods or services, or
(ii) Closely related goods or services, or
(iii) If it nearly resembles such a mark
as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion[.] (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
To clarify, while it is the fact of registration which confers
ownership of the mark and enables the owner thereof to exercise the rights
expressed in Section 147 of the IP Code, the first-to-file rule
nevertheless prioritizes the first filer of the trademark application and
operates to prevent any subsequent applicants from registering marks described
under Section 123.1 (d) of the IP Code.
Reading together Sections 122 and 123.1 (d) of the IP Code,
therefore, a registered mark or a mark with an earlier filing or priority date
generally bars the future registration of — and the future acquisition of
rights in — an identical or a confusingly similar mark, in respect of the same
or closely-related goods or services, if the resemblance will likely deceive or
cause confusion.
The current rule under the IP Code is thus in stark
contrast to the rule on acquisition of ownership under the Trademark Law,
as amended. To recall, the Trademark Law, as amended, provided that
prior use and non-abandonment of a mark by one person barred the future
registration of an identical or a confusingly similar mark by a different
proprietor when confusion or deception was likely. It also stated that one
acquired ownership over a mark by actual use.
Once the IP Code took effect, however, the general rule on ownership was changed and repealed. At present, as expressed in the language of the provisions of the IP Code, prior use no longer determines the acquisition of ownership of a mark in light of the adoption of the rule that ownership of a mark is acquired through registration made validly in accordance with the provisions of the IP Code. Accordingly, the trademark provisions of the IP Code use the term "owner" in relation to registrations. This fact is also apparent when comparing the provisions of the Trademark Law, as amended, and the IP Code, viz.:
Trademark Law, as amended |
IP Code |
Sec. 4. Registration
of trade-marks, trade-names and service-marks on the principal register.
— There is hereby established a register of trade-mark, trade-names and
service-marks which shall be known as the principal register. The owner of a
trade-mark, a trade-name or service-mark used to distinguish his goods,
business or services from the goods, business or services of others shall
have the right to register the same on the principal register, unless it: (a) Consists of
or comprises immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter; or matter which may
disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead,
institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or
disrepute; (b) Consists of
or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the Philippines or
any of its political subdivisions, or of any foreign nation, or any
simulation thereof; (c) Consists of
or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living
individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait
of a deceased President of the Philippines, during the life of his widow, if
any, except by the written consent of the widow; (d) Consists of
or comprises a mark or trade-name which so resembles a mark or trade-name
registered in the Philippines or a mark or trade-name previously used in
the Philippines by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when
applied to or used in connection with the goods, business or services of the
applicant, to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers; or xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied) |
SECTION 123. Registrability.
— 123.1. A mark cannot be registered if it: (a) Consists of
immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter, or matter which may disparage or
falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions,
beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute; (b) Consists of
the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the Philippines or any of its
political subdivisions, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof; (c) Consists of
a name, portrait or signature identifying a particular living individual
except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a
deceased President of the Philippines, during the life of his widow, if any,
except by written consent of the widow; (d) Is
identical with a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a
mark with an earlier filing or priority date, in respect of: (i) The same goods or services, or (ii) Closely related goods or services,
or (iii) If it nearly resembles such a mark
as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion; xxx xxx xxx (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 166a) (Emphasis supplied) |
Subparagraph (d) of the above provision of the Trademark Law
was amended in the IP Code to, among others, remove the phrase "previously
used in the Philippines by another and not abandoned." Under the Trademark
Law, as amended, the first user of the mark had the right to file a
cancellation case against an identical or confusingly mark registered in good
faith by another person. However, with the omission in the IP Code
provision of the phrase "previously used in the Philippines by another
and not abandoned," said right of the first user is no longer
available. In effect, based on the language of the provisions of the IP Code,
even if the mark was previously used and not abandoned by another person, a
good faith applicant may still register the same and thus become the owner
thereof, and the prior user cannot ask for the cancellation of the latter's
registration. If the lawmakers had wanted to retain the regime of acquiring
ownership through use, this phrase should have been retained in order to avoid
conflicts in ownership. The removal of such a right unequivocally shows the
intent of the lawmakers to abandon the regime of ownership under the Trademark
Law, as amended.
On this point, our esteemed colleagues Associate Justices Leonen
and Lazaro-Javier have expressed their doubts regarding the abandonment of the
ownership regime under the Trademark Law, as amended, because of the
continued requirement of actual use under the IP Code and because of the
prima facie nature of a certificate of registration. In particular,
Sections 124.2 and 145 of the IP Code provide that the
applicant/registrant is required to file a Declaration of Actual Use on
specified periods, while Section 138 provides that a certificate of
registration of a mark shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of
the registration, the registrant's ownership of the mark, and of the
registrant's exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods or
services and those that are related thereto specified in the certificate.
Certainly, while the IP Code and the Rules of the
IPO mandate that the applicant/registrant must prove continued actual use of
the mark, it is the considered view of the Court that this does not imply that
actual use is still a recognized mode of acquisition of ownership under the
IP Code. Rather, these must be understood as provisions that require actual
use of the mark in order for the registered owner of a mark to maintain
his ownership.
In the same vein, the prima facie nature of the certificate
of registration is not indicative of the fact that prior use is still a
recognized mode of acquiring ownership under the IP Code. Rather, it is
meant to recognize the instances when the certificate of registration is not reflective
of ownership of the holder thereof, such as when: [1] the first registrant has
acquired ownership of the mark through registration but subsequently lost the
same due to non-use or abandonment (e.g., failure to file the
Declaration of Actual Use); [2] the registration was done in bad faith; [3] the
mark itself becomes generic; [4] the mark was registered contrary to the IP
Code (e.g., when a generic mark was successfully registered for some
reason); or [5] the registered mark is being used by, or with the permission
of, the registrant so as to misrepresent the source of the goods or services on
or in connection with which the mark is used.
ii. Legislative intent to abandon the rule
that ownership of a mark is acquired through use
The lawmakers' intention to change the system of acquiring rights
over a mark is even more evident in the sponsorship speech of the late Senator
Raul Roco for the IP Code. The shift to a new system was brought about
by the country's adherence to treaties, and Senator Roco specifically stated
that the bill abandons the rule that ownership of a mark is acquired through
use, thus:
Part III of the Code is the new law on
trademarks.
On September 27, 1965, Mr. President, the
Philippines adhered to the Lisbon Act of the Paris Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property [(Paris Convention)]. This obliged the
country to introduce a system of registration of marks of nationals of
member-countries of the Paris Convention which is based not on use in the
Philippines but on foreign registration. This procedure is defective in several
aspects: first, it provides to a foreign applicant a procedure which is less
cumbersome compared to what is required of local applicants who need to
establish prior use as a condition for filing a trademark; and second, it is
incompatible with the "based on use" principle which is followed in
the present Trademark Law.
Furthermore, Mr. President, our adherence to
the Paris Convention binds us to protect well-known marks. Unfortunately, the
provisions of 6bis of the Paris Convention on this matter are couched in
broad terms which are not defined in the Convention. This has given rise to
litigation between local businessmen using the mark and foreigners who own the
well-known marks. The conflicting court decisions on this issue aggravate the
situation and they are a compendium of contradictory cases.
The proposed [IP] Code seeks
to correct these defects and provides solutions to these problems and make a
consistency in ruling for future purposes.
To comply with [the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement)] and other
international commitments, this bill no longer requires prior use of the
mark as a requirement for filing a trademark application. It also abandons
the rule that ownership of a mark is acquired through use by now requiring
registration of the mark in the Intellectual Property Office. Unlike
the present law, it establishes one procedure for the registration of marks.
This feature will facilitate the registration of marks.
Senate Bill No. 1719 also no longer requires
use or registration in the Philippines for the protection of well-known marks.
If the mark is registered, such registration can prohibit its use by another in
connection with goods or services which are not similar to those with respect
to which the registration is applied for. This resolves many of the questions
that have remained unanswered by present law and jurisprudence. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
The legislative intent to abandon the rule that ownership is
acquired through use and to adopt the rule that ownership is acquired through
registration is therefore crystal clear. On this score, Justice Leonen
prudently cautions against deriving legislative intent from these
deliberations, especially since they are limited to the opinions of those
present, and neither consider the opinions of those who did not or were not
able to speak, nor do they account for changing circumstances. While this may
be true, the Court is of the considered view that this does not mean that its
interpretation of the statute based on such deliberations is inaccurate or
wrong, especially in this case because, at the risk of belaboring the point,
the provisions of the IP Code and the legislative deliberations are
consistent in showing that the regime of ownership under the Trademark Law,
as amended, has been abandoned.
iii. Rule on ownership based on prior use
in Berris and E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc. inconsistent with the IP Code regime
of ownership through registration
As mentioned, Zuneca argues that as the prior user, following Berris
and E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc., it had already owned the
"ZYNAPS" mark prior to Natrapharm's registration of its confusingly
similar mark, thus, its rights prevail over the rights of Natrapharm.
As will be further explained, however, a closer look at the cases
cited by Zuneca reveals that the rule on ownership used in resolving these
cases is inconsistent with the rule on acquisition of ownership through
registration under the IP Code.
In Berris, Norvy Abyadang (Abyadang) filed a
trademark application for "NS D-10 PLUS" in 2004. This was opposed by
Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. (Berris, Inc.) on the ground that it was
confusingly similar to its registered mark, "D-10 80 WP," which was
applied for in 2002 and eventually registered in 2004. The marks were indeed
found to be confusingly similar. However, in ruling that Berris, Inc. was the
rightful owner of the mark, the Court did not just decide based on the fact
that Berris, Inc. filed the application and registered the mark prior to
Abyadang. Instead, it also contained the following discussion with the
conclusion that actual use was required to own a mark:
The basic law on trademark, infringement, and
unfair competition is [the IP Code], specifically Sections 121 to 170
thereof. It took effect on January 1, 1998. Prior to its effectivity, the
applicable law was [the Trademark Law], as amended.
Interestingly, [the IP Code] did not
expressly repeal in its entirety [the Trademark Law, as amended], but
merely provided in Section 239.1 that [a]cts and parts of [a]cts inconsistent
with it were repealed. In other words, only in the instances where a
substantial and irreconcilable conflict is found between the provisions of [the
IP Code] and of [the Trademark Law, as amended] would the
provisions of the latter be deemed repealed.
[The IP Code] defines a "mark"
as any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services
(service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container
of goods. It also defines a "collective mark" as any visible sign
designated as such in the application for registration and capable of
distinguishing the origin or any other common characteristic, including the
quality of goods or services of different enterprises which use the sign under
the control of the registered owner of the collective mark.
On the other hand, [the Trademark Law,
as amended] defines a "trademark" as any distinctive word, name,
symbol, emblem, sign, or device, or any combination thereof, adopted and used
by a manufacturer or merchant on his goods to identify and distinguish them
from those manufactured, sold, or dealt by another. A trademark, being a
special property, is afforded protection by law. But for one to enjoy this
legal protection, x x x ownership of the trademark should rightly be
established.
The ownership of a trademark
is acquired by its registration and its actual use by the manufacturer
or distributor of the goods made available to the purchasing public. Section 122 of
[the IP Code] provides that the rights in a mark shall be acquired by
means of its valid registration with the IPO. A certificate of registration of
a mark, once issued, constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of
the registration, of the registrant's ownership of the mark, and of the
registrant's exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods or
services and those that are related thereto specified in the certificate. [The IP
Code], however, requires the applicant for registration or the registrant
to file a declaration of actual use (DAU) of the mark, with evidence to that
effect, within three (3) years from the filing of the application for
registration; otherwise, the application shall be refused or the mark shall be
removed from the register. In other words, the prima facie presumption
brought about by the registration of a mark may be challenged and overcome, in
an appropriate action, by proof of the nullity of the registration or of
non-use of the mark, except when excused. Moreover, the presumption may
likewise be defeated by evidence of prior use by another person, i.e.,
it will controvert a claim of legal appropriation or of ownership based on
registration by a subsequent user. This is because a trademark is a creation of
use and belongs to one who first used it in trade or commerce.
(Citations omitted; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In Berris, despite the fact that Berris, Inc. was
eventually decided to be the owner of the mark consistent with the rule on
ownership under the IP Code, the Court mistakenly gave undue weight to
the fact of prior use. To be sure, it was unnecessary to also anchor Berris,
Inc.'s ownership of the mark on the fact that it was the prior user as this was
inconsistent with the express provisions of the IP Code and the
legislative intent behind the law. Stated differently, the Court's decision in Berris
was correct based on the fact that Berris, Inc. was the first to file the
application and register the mark.
Significantly, in giving weight to the fact of prior use, the
Court cited the author Ruben E. Agpalo who had, in turn, cited jurisprudence
decided under the Trademark Law, as amended. As a result, the rule that
prior use was determinative of ownership was also used to resolve the issue of
ownership in Berris. As stated, however, this is contrary to the IP
Code.
To repeat, after the IP Code became effective starting
1998, use was no longer required in order to acquire or perfect ownership of
the mark. In this regard, the Court now rectifies the inaccurate statement in Berris
that "[t]he ownership of a trademark is acquired by its registration and
its actual use." The rectified statement should thus read: "Under
the IP Code, the ownership of a trademark is acquired by its
registration." Any pronouncement in Berris inconsistent
herewith should be harmonized accordingly. To clarify, while subsequent use of
the mark and proof thereof are required to prevent the removal or cancellation
of a registered mark or the refusal of a pending application under the IP
Code, this should not be taken to mean that actual use and proof thereof
are necessary before one can own the mark or exercise the rights of a trademark
owner.
Likewise, the rule on acquiring ownership discussed in E.Y.
Industrial Sales, Inc. is inconsistent with the current rule under the
IP Code. In said case, E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc. (EYIS) imported
air compressors from Shen Dar from 1997 to 2004. In 1997, during the
effectivity of the Trademark Law, as amended, Shen Dar filed a trademark
application for "VESPA, Chinese Characters and Device" for use on air
compressors and welding machines. Subsequently, in 1999, or already during
the effectivity of the IP Code, EYIS filed a trademark application for
"VESPA" for use on air compressors. On January 18, 2004, the IPO
issued the certificate of registration for "VESPA" in favor of EYIS.
Subsequently, on February 8, 2007, the certificate of registration for
"VESPA, Chinese Characters and Device" was issued in favor of Shen Dar.
Claiming to be the owner of the mark, Shen Dar filed a petition to
cancel EYIS's certificate of registration. The Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA)
and the Director General of the IPO both ruled that EYIS was the owner of the
mark and likewise directed the cancellation of Shen Dar's certificate of
registration.
Once the case reached the Court, the dispute was resolved in favor
of EYIS. The ponencia cited Section 123.1 (d), the first-to-file rule
adopted by the IP Code, and likewise included the following discussion
in Shangri-la International Hotel Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group of
Companies, Inc., (Shangri-la) in concluding that the prior
user EYIS was the owner of the mark, viz.:
In any event, given the length of time already
invested by the parties in the instant case, this Court must write finis
to the instant controversy by determining, once and for all, the true owner of
the mark "VESPA" based on the evidence presented.
[The IP Code] espouses the
"first-to-file" rule as stated under Sec. 123.1 (d) which states:
Section 123. Registrability. — 123.1. A
mark cannot be registered if it:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Is identical with a registered mark
belonging to a different proprietor or a mark with an earlier filing or
priority date, in respect of:
(i) The same goods or services, or
(ii) Closely related goods or services, or
(iii) If it nearly resembles such a mark
as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. x x x
Under this provision, the registration of a
mark is prevented with the filing of an earlier application for registration. This
must not, however, be interpreted to mean that ownership should be based upon
an earlier filing date. While [the IP Code] removed the previous
requirement of proof of actual use prior to the filing of an application for
registration of a mark, proof of prior and continuous use is necessary to
establish ownership of a mark. Such ownership constitutes sufficient evidence
to oppose the registration of a mark.
Sec. 134 of the IP Code provides that
"any person who believes that he would be damaged by the registration of a
mark x x x" may file an opposition to the application. The term "any
person" encompasses the true owner of the mark — the prior and continuous
user.
Notably, the Court has ruled
that the prior and continuous use of a mark may even overcome the presumptive
ownership of the registrant and be held as the owner of the mark. As aptly
stated by the Court in [Shangri-la]:
Registration, without more, does not confer
upon the registrant an absolute right to the registered mark. The certificate
of registration is merely a prima facie proof that the registrant is the
owner of the registered mark or trade name. Evidence of prior and continuous
use of the mark or trade name by another can overcome the presumptive ownership
of the registrant and may very well entitle the former to be declared owner in
an appropriate case.
xxx xxx xxx
Ownership of a mark or trade name may be
acquired not necessarily by registration but by adoption and use in trade or
commerce. As between actual use of a mark without registration, and
registration of the mark without actual use thereof, the former prevails over
the latter. For a rule widely accepted and firmly entrenched, because it has come
down through the years, is that actual use in commerce or business is a
pre-requisite to the acquisition of the right of ownership.
xxx xxx xxx
By itself, registration is not a mode of
acquiring ownership. When the applicant is not the owner of the trademark being
applied for, he has no right to apply for registration of the same.
Registration merely creates a prima facie presumption of the validity of
the registration, of the registrant's ownership of the trademark and of the
exclusive right to the use thereof. Such presumption, just like the presumptive
regularity in the performance of official functions, is rebuttable and must
give way to evidence to the contrary. (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)
However, a careful reading of Shangri-la will
unmistakably show that, despite having been promulgated in 2006, the applicable
law of the case was the Trademark Law, as amended, considering the
following excerpts:
While the present law on trademarks has
dispensed with the requirement of prior actual use at the time of registration,
the law in force at the time of registration[, i.e., the Trademark
Law, as amended,] must be applied, and thereunder it was held that as a
condition precedent to registration of trademark, trade name or service mark,
the same must have been in actual use in the Philippines before the filing of
the application for registration. Trademark is a creation of use and therefore
actual use is a pre-requisite to exclusive ownership and its registration with
the Philippine Patent Office is a mere administrative confirmation of the
existence of such right.
xxx xxx xxx
However, while the Philippines was already a
signatory to the Paris Convention, the [IP Code] only took effect
on January 1, 19[9]8, and in the absence of a retroactivity clause, [the
Trademark Law, as amended] still applies. x x x (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
It is worth noting that in E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc.,
the Court upheld the factual finding that the first actual use by EYIS was
earlier than Shen Dar's. The earliest dates of use by both parties therein were
during the effectivity of the Trademark Law, as amended. It is
also important to reiterate that EYIS had applied and registered the mark under
the IP Code, while Shen Dar had applied for the mark under the Trademark
Law, as amended, and its registration was obtained after the effectivity of
the IP Code.
To be sure, the rule used to resolve the issue of ownership in E.Y.
Industrial Sales, Inc. and Shangri-la should not be made
to apply in a situation involving marks which are both used and/or registered
after the effectivity of the IP Code. In the case at bar, both
"ZYNAPS" and "ZYNAPSE" have been used and/or registered
after the IP Code became effective. Clearly, the use or citation of Trademark
Law jurisprudence to resolve the question on acquisition of ownership of
marks in the case at bar or in cases involving marks registered or first used
under the IP Code will be irrelevant and inappropriate.
In light of the foregoing, Zuneca thus erred in using Berris
and E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc. as bases for its argument that
the prior user is the owner of the mark and its rights prevail over the rights
of the first-to-file registrant. To emphasize, for marks that are first used
and/or registered after the effectivity of the IP Code, ownership is no
longer dependent on the fact of prior use in light of the adoption of the
first-to-file rule and the rule that ownership is acquired through
registration.
II. Bad faith and
good faith in trademark registration and use
In a bid to invalidate Natrapharm's rights as first registrant,
Zuneca further argues that Natrapharm had registered the mark fraudulently and
in bad faith.
The existence of bad faith in trademark registrations may be a
ground for its cancellation at any time by filing a petition for cancellation
under Section 151 (b) of the IP Code, viz.:
SECTION 151. Cancellation. — 151.1.
A petition to cancel a registration of a mark under this Act may be filed
with the Bureau of Legal Affairs by any person who believes that he is or will
be damaged by the registration of a mark under this Act as follows:
(a) Within five (5) years from the date of
the registration of the mark under this Act.
(b) At any time, if the registered
mark becomes the generic name for the goods or services or a portion thereof,
for which it is registered, or has been abandoned, or its registration was
obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of this Act, or
if the registered mark is being used by, or with the permission of, the
registrant so as to misrepresent the source of the goods or services on or in
connection with which the mark is used. If the registered mark becomes the
generic name for less than all of the goods or services for which it is
registered, a petition to cancel the registration for only those goods or
services may be filed. A registered mark shall not be deemed to be the generic
name of goods or services solely because such mark is also used as a name of or
to identify a unique product or service. The primary significance of the
registered mark to the relevant public rather than purchaser motivation shall
be the test for determining whether the registered mark has become the generic
name of goods or services on or in connection with which it has been used. (n)
(c) At any time, if the registered owner
of the mark without legitimate reason fails to use the mark within the
Philippines, or to cause it to be used in the Philippines by virtue of a
license during an uninterrupted period of three (3) years or longer. (Emphasis
supplied)
Notably, this ground for cancelling marks was already present under the Trademark Law, as amended. The table below shows how the language in the IP Code provision mirrors the provision under the Trademark Law, as amended:
Trademark Law, as amended |
IP Code |
CHAPTER IV Cancellation of
Registration SECTION 17. Grounds
for Cancellation. — Any person, who believes that he is or will be
damaged by the registration of a mark or trade-name, may, upon the
payment of the prescribed fee, apply to cancel said registration upon any
of the following grounds: (a) That the registered mark or
trade-name becomes the common descriptive name of an article or substance on
which the patent has expired; (b) That it has been abandoned; (c) That the registration was
obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of section four, Chapter
II hereof; (d) That the registered mark or
trade-name has been assigned, and is being used by, or with the permission
of, the assignee so as to misrepresent the source of the goods, business or
services in connection with which the mark or trade-name is used; or (e) That cancellation is authorized by other provisions of this Act. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) |
SECTION 151. Cancellation.
— 151.1. A petition to cancel a registration of a mark under this Act may
be filed with the Bureau of Legal Affairs by any person who believes that
he is or will be damaged by the registration of a mark under this Act as
follows: xxx xxx xxx (b) At any time, if the registered mark becomes the generic name for the goods or services, or a portion thereof, for which it is registered, or has been abandoned, or its registration was obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of this Act, or if the registered mark is being used by, or with the permission of, the registrant so as to misrepresent the source of the goods or services on or in connection with which the mark is used. If the registered mark becomes the generic name for less than all of the goods or services for which it is registered, a petition to cancel the registration for only those goods or services may be filed. A registered mark shall not be deemed to be the generic name of goods or services solely because such mark is also used as a name of or to identify a unique product or service. The primary significance of the registered mark to the relevant public rather than purchaser motivation shall be the test for determining whether the registered mark has become the generic name of goods or services on or in connection with which it has been used. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) |
Resultantly — unlike the rule on acquisition of ownership — the
pronouncements of the Court relative to registrations obtained in bad faith
under the Trademark Law, as amended, still subsist even after the
effectivity of the IP Code. Thus, the following cases where the Court
defined bad faith and fraud, although decided under the regime of the Trademark
Law, as amended, are still applicable.
The concepts of bad faith and fraud were defined in Mustang-Bekleidungswerke
GmbH + Co. KG v. Hung Chiu Ming, a case decided by the Office of the
Director General of the IPO under the Trademark Law, as amended, viz.:
What constitutes fraud or bad faith in
trademark registration? Bad faith means that the applicant or registrant has
knowledge of prior creation, use and/or registration by another of an identical
or similar trademark. In other words, it is copying and using somebody else's
trademark. Fraud, on the other hand, may be committed by making false claims in
connection with the trademark application and registration, particularly, on
the issues of origin, ownership, and use of the trademark in question, among other
things.
The concept of fraud contemplated above is not a mere inaccurate
claim as to the origin, ownership, and use of the trademark. In civil law, the
concept of fraud has been defined as the deliberate intention to cause damage
or prejudice. The same principle applies in the context of trademark
registrations: fraud is intentionally making false claims to take advantage of
another's goodwill thereby causing damage or prejudice to another. Indeed, the
concepts of bad faith and fraud go hand-in-hand in this context. There is no
distinction between the concepts of bad faith and fraud in trademark
registrations because the existence of one necessarily presupposes the
existence of the other.
Shangri-la supports the definition of
bad faith in trademark registrations as knowledge by the registrant of prior
creation, use, and/or registration by another of an identical or similar
trademark. In said case, since respondent Developers Group of Companies, Inc.'s
(DGI) president was a previous guest at one of petitioner's hotels, it was
found that DGI was in bad faith when it appropriated and registered the
"SHANGRI-LA" mark and the "S" logo, viz.:
The CA itself, in its Decision of May 15, 2003,
found that the respondent's president and chairman of the board, Ramon
Syhunliong, had been a guest at the petitioners' hotel before he caused the
registration of the mark and logo, and surmised that he must have copied the
idea there[.]
xxx xxx xxx
To jump from a recognition of the fact that the
mark and logo must have been copied to a rationalization for the possibility
that both the petitioners and the respondent coincidentally chose the same name
and logo is not only contradictory, but also manifestly mistaken or absurd.
Furthermore, the "S" logo appears nothing like the "Old
English" print that the CA makes it out to be, but is obviously a symbol
with oriental or Asian overtones. At any rate, it is ludicrous to believe
that the parties would come up with the exact same lettering for the word
"Shangri-La" and the exact same logo to boot. As correctly
observed by the petitioners, to which we are in full accord:
x x x When a trademark copycat adopts the
word portion of another's trademark as his own, there may still be some doubt
that the adoption is intentional. But if he copies not only the word but also
the word's exact font and lettering style and in addition, he copies also the
logo portion of the trademark, the slightest doubt vanishes. It is then
replaced by the certainty that the adoption was deliberate, malicious and in
bad faith.
It is truly difficult to understand why, of the
millions of terms and combination of letters and designs available, the
respondent had to choose exactly the same mark and logo as that of the
petitioners, if there was no intent to take advantage of the goodwill of
petitioners' mark and logo.
One who has imitated the trademark of another
cannot bring an action for infringement, particularly against the true owner of
the mark, because he would be coming to court with unclean hands. Priority
is of no avail to the bad faith plaintiff. Good faith is required in order to
ensure that a second user may not merely take advantage of the goodwill
established by the true owner. (Emphasis supplied)
Pagasa Industrial Corporation v. Court of
Appeals 113 likewise supports the definition of bad faith as prior
knowledge. In said case, the Court found that Pagasa registered the
"YKK" mark in bad faith because it had previously known that there
was another person using the mark. Hence, the Court affirmed the cancellation
of the mark as decided by the Director of Patents and the CA:
Pagasa appealed to the [CA] which in its
decision dated February 6, 1980 affirmed the cancellation. It found that
prior to 1968 Pagasa knew that Yoshida was the registered owner and user of the
YKK trademark which is an acronym of its corporate name.
Tadao Yoshida, the president of Yoshida, and
Tsutomu Isaka, the export manager, visited in 1960 (1965) Pagasa's factory
which was manufacturing zippers under the Royal brand. Anacleto Chi,
Pagasa's president, visited in turn Yoshida's factory in Toyoma, Japan.
The Appellate Court concluded that Pagasa's
knowledge that Yoshida was using the YKK trademark precludes the
application of the equitable principle of laches, estoppel and acquiescence. It
noted that Pagasa acted in bad faith. As observed by Yoshida's counsel,
Pagasa's registration of YKK as its own trademark was an act of ingratitude.
xxx xxx xxx
Pagasa cannot rely on equity because he who
comes into equity must come with clean hands. Equity refuses to lend its aid in
any manner to one seeking its active interposition who has been guilty of
unlawful or inequitable conduct in the matter with relation to which he seeks
relief (30 C.J.S. 1009).
"Registration is sufficient prima facie
proof that all acts necessary to entitle the mark to registration were duly
performed." (87 C.J.S. 421). Obviously, Yoshida's prior registration is
superior and must prevail. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Birkenstock Orthopaedie GmbH and Co. KG v.
Phil. Shoe Expo Marketing Corp. also involved a
finding that a party was in bad faith because it had known of the existence and
use by another person of the mark before said party appropriated and registered
the same, viz.:
In view of the foregoing circumstances, the
Court finds the petitioner to be the true and lawful owner of the mark
"BIRKENSTOCK" and entitled to its registration, and that
respondent was in bad faith in having it registered in its name. In this
regard, the Court quotes with approval the words of the IPO Director General, viz.:
The facts and evidence fail to show that
[respondent] was in good faith in using and in registering the mark
BIRKENSTOCK. BIRKENSTOCK, obviously of German origin, is a highly distinct and
arbitrary mark. It is very remote that two persons did coin the same or
identical marks. To come up with a highly distinct and uncommon mark previously
appropriated by another, for use in the same line of business, and without any
plausible explanation, is incredible. The field from which a person may select
a trademark is practically unlimited. As in all other cases of colorable
imitations, the unanswered riddle is why, of the millions of terms and
combinations of letters and designs available, [respondent] had to come up with
a mark identical or so closely similar to the [petitioner's] if there was no
intent to take advantage of the goodwill generated by the [petitioner's] mark. Being
on the same line of business, it is highly probable that the [respondent] knew
of the existence of BIRKENSTOCK and its use by the [petitioner], before
[respondent] appropriated the same mark and had it registered in its name.
(Emphasis supplied)
More importantly, however, there is also jurisprudential basis to
declare these trademark registrations done in bad faith as void. In the case of
Shangri-La International Hotel Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group of
Companies, Inc. (Shangri-la Resolution), the Court classified
the respondent's registration as void due to the existence of bad faith
and because it failed to comply with the provisions of the Trademark Law,
as amended.
While the Court in the Shangri-la Resolution
declared the trademark registration as void based on two grounds, i.e.,
the presence of bad faith and the fact that the mark was registered
contrary to provisions of the law, either one of these grounds may be used as
sufficient basis for the courts or the IPO to declare trademark registrations
as void.
A perusal of the above cancellation provisions in the IP Code
and the Trademark Law, as amended, would reveal that these two grounds
differ from the others in the sense that, unlike the other grounds for
cancellation, they both exist prior to the registration. That is, one can
have a registration in bad faith only if he applied for the registration of the
mark despite knowing that someone else has created, used, or registered that
mark. In the same vein, an unregistrable mark which was mistakenly allowed to
be registered was already inherently unregistrable even prior to its
registration. Accordingly, because these marks should not have been
registered in the first place, the presence of either of these grounds
renders them void. Thus, even if these marks subsequently became registered,
the registrations do not confer upon their owners the rights under Section
147.1 of the IP Code because the marks were registered contrary to the
provisions of the same law.
To emphasize, the presence of bad faith alone renders void the
trademark registrations. Accordingly, it follows as a matter of consequence
that a mark registered in bad faith shall be cancelled by the IPO or the
courts, as the case may be, after the appropriate proceedings.
This concept of bad faith, however, does not only exist in
registrations. To the mind of the Court, the definition of bad faith as
knowledge of prior creation, use and/or registration by another of an identical
or similar trademark is also applicable in the use of trademarks without the
benefit of registration. Accordingly, such bad faith use is also appropriately
punished in the IP Code as can be seen in its unfair competition
provisions.
It is apparent, therefore, that the law intends to deter
registrations and use of trademarks in bad faith.
Concurrent with these aims, the law also protects prior
registration and prior use of trademarks in good faith.
Being the first-to-file registrant in good faith allows the
registrant to acquire all the rights in a mark. This can be seen in Section 122
vis-à-vis the cancellation provision in Section 155.1 of the IP Code.
Reading these two provisions together, it is clear that when there are no
grounds for cancellation — especially the registration being obtained in bad
faith or contrary to the provisions of the IP Code, which render the
registration void — the first-to-file registrant acquires all the rights in a
mark, thus:
SECTION 122. How Marks are Acquired.
— The rights in a mark shall be acquired through registration made
validly in accordance with the provisions of this law. (Sec. 2-A, R.A.
No. 166a)
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 151. Cancellation. — 151.1.
A petition to cancel a registration of a mark under this Act may be filed with
the Bureau of Legal Affairs by any person who believes that he is or will be
damaged by the registration of a mark under this Act as follows:
(a) Within five (5) years from the date of
the registration of the mark under this Act.
(b) At any time, if the registered mark
becomes the generic name for the goods or services, or a portion thereof, for
which it is registered, or has been abandoned, or its registration was
obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of this Act, or if
the registered mark is being used by, or with the permission of, the registrant
so as to misrepresent the source of the goods or services on or in connection
with which the mark is used. If the registered mark becomes the generic name
for less than all of the goods or services for which it is registered, a
petition to cancel the registration for only those goods or services may be
filed. A registered mark shall not be deemed to be the generic name of goods or
services solely because such mark is also used as a name of or to identify a
unique product or service. The primary significance of the registered mark to
the relevant public rather than purchaser motivation shall be the test for
determining whether the registered mark has become the generic name of goods or
services on or in connection with which it has been used. (n)
(c) At any time, if the registered owner
of the mark without legitimate reason fails to use the mark within the
Philippines, or to cause it to be used in the Philippines by virtue of a
license during an uninterrupted period of three (3) years or longer. (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)
In the same vein, prior users in good faith are also protected in
the sense that they will not be made liable for trademark infringement even if
they are using a mark that was subsequently registered by another person. This
is expressed in Section 159.1 of the IP Code, which reads:
SECTION 159. Limitations to Actions for
Infringement. — Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
remedies given to the owner of a right infringed under this Act shall be
limited as follows:
159.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 155 hereof, a registered mark shall have no effect against
any person who, in good faith, before the filing date or the priority date, was
using the mark for the purposes of his business or enterprise: Provided,
That his right may only be transferred or assigned together with his
enterprise or business or with that part of his enterprise or business in which
the mark is used. (Underscoring supplied)
III. The resolution
of the controversy
At this point, it is important to highlight that the following
facts were no longer questioned by both parties: (a) Natrapharm is the
registrant of the "ZYNAPSE" mark which was registered with the IPO on
September 24, 2007; (b) Zuneca has been using the "ZYNAPS" brand as
early as 2004; and (c) "ZYNAPSE" and "ZYNAPS" are
confusingly similar and both are used for medicines.
In light of these settled facts, it is clear that Natrapharm is
the first-to-file registrant of "ZYNAPSE." Zuneca, on the other hand,
is a prior user in good faith of a confusingly similar mark,
"ZYNAPS." What remains contentious is Natrapharm's good or bad faith
as Zuneca contends that the mark was registered in bad faith by Natrapharm.
Indeed, if Zuneca's contention turns out to be true, Natrapharm would not be
the owner of "ZYNAPSE" and it would not have the right under Section
147.1 of the IP Code to prevent other entities, including Zuneca, from
using confusingly similar marks for identical or similar goods or services.
Further, Natrapharm's infringement case would fail because its
"ZYNAPSE" registration would then be voided.
To be sure, the finding of good faith or bad faith is a matter of
factual determination. Considering that a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 should only raise questions of law, it is improper to put into
issue at this juncture the existence of bad faith in Natrapharm's registration.
Further, it is a well-recognized rule that the factual findings of
the RTC, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its
assessment of their probative weight are given high respect, if not conclusive
effect, unless cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which if
considered, would alter the outcome of the case, were ignored, misconstrued or
misinterpreted.
Assuming, however, that the Court should still review this factual
issue, it finds no reason to depart from the findings of facts of the RTC,
which findings were affirmed by the CA. In fact, the Court also conducted a
review of the testimonies and evidence presented by the parties and finds that
the RTC and the CA were correct in their factual findings.
The RTC ruled that there was no sufficient evidence to convince it
that Natrapharm had acquired the registration in bad faith. The RTC ruled as
follows:
Apparently claiming an exception to the
first-to-register rule, the defendants [Zuneca] insist that the plaintiff
[Natrapharm] knew of the existence of ["ZYNAPS"] at the time the
plaintiff filed its application for registration. The defendants support this
position by presenting a copy of the Philippine Pharmaceutical Directory (PPD)
where ["ZYNAPS"] is listed on the same page as the other brand names
of the plaintiff.
However, defendant Arain admitted on
cross[-]examination that even if ["ZYNAPS"] was listed in the PPD,
this does not give her complete knowledge of the brand names of the other
pharmaceuticals also listed in the same Directory. [Consistent] with this
admission, plaintiff should also be accorded the benefit of the doubt that it
could not have complete knowledge of the other brand names listed in the PPD.
Likewise, the defendants claim that in some
medical conventions where Patriot, the sister company of the plaintiff,
attended, the ["ZYNAPS"] product of the defendants was advertised and
displayed.
It was, however, clearly shown that Patriot is
not the same company as the plaintiff. It could not be safely concluded that
[the plaintiff] knew of ["ZYNAPS"] through Patriot.
In both arguments, this Court finds no
sufficient evidence to convince it that there was bad faith in the registration
made by the plaintiff.
The CA thereafter upheld the finding of the RTC that Natrapharm
was not aware of the existence of "ZYNAPS" prior to the registration
of "ZYNAPSE." The CA quoted and affirmed the foregoing findings of
the RTC.
The CA added that Natrapharm's good faith was established through
the testimony of Natrapharm's witness, Ravelo, whose testimony essentially
contained the following points: (a) Natrapharm had used the BFAD and IPO
databases and the Philippine Pharmaceutical Index (PPI) — a research tool
accepted by the Philippine pharmaceutical industry which contains
pharmaceutical products marketed in the Philippines — in determining whether
"ZYNAPSE" was confusingly similar to an existing brand name in the market;
(b) only Ravelo, Mr. Gasgonia, Natrapharm's Chief Operations Officer, and Mrs.
Agnes Casiding, Natrapharm's Regulatory Manager, knew about the launch of the
new product; (c) she had based the name "ZYNAPSE" from an internal
newsletter in the Philippine Neurological Association as well as from the
neurological term "synapse" — the junction between two nerves where
they transmit nerve signals — which relates to the neurological problem of
stroke; (d) she had checked the PPI as far back as fourth quarter of 2004 and
found that there was no confusingly similar name; and (e) she had then
submitted the name to Natrapharm's trademark lawyers who had it registered with
the IPO and then with the BFAD.
The CA thus concluded that Zuneca failed to prove that Natrapharm
had registered "ZYNAPSE" in bad faith, viz.:
This Court would also like to add that even if
both Zuneca and Natrapharm have interacted with each other through a
convention, it does not automatically mean that Natrapharm already acted in bad
faith in registering "ZYNAPSE." First, just like the PPD, it is
highly unlikely that the participants would remember each and every medicine or
drug exhibited during said convention. Secondly, the convention happened two
(2) years prior to the registration of "ZYNAPSE" and it is not proven
that those who attended the convention on the part of Natrapharm were the same
people who were responsible for the creation of "ZYNAPSE" or that
they were still connected with Natrapharm in 2007. As a rule, good faith is
always presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of a possessor
rests the burden of proof. The appellants, however, miserably failed to carry
that burden. (Emphasis supplied)
The Court affirms the factual findings of the lower courts. Since
Zuneca is making the allegations of bad faith, it was incumbent on Zuneca to
overcome the evidence that Natrapharm was the owner of the mark
"ZYNAPSE" and to show that Natrapharm had registered
"ZYNAPSE" in bad faith. However, Zuneca failed to show that the
registration was made fraudulently or in bad faith. In contrast, Natrapharm was
able to convince the lower courts, as it likewise convinces this Court, that it
had acted in good faith when it came up with the name "ZYNAPSE" and
that it had no knowledge of Zuneca's use of "ZYNAPS" after it had
checked the PPI, BFAD, and IPO databases.
Zuneca's evidence clearly falls short of establishing that
Natrapharm had knowledge of the prior creation or use by Zuneca of the
"ZYNAPS" mark. Zuneca's evidence only tends to prove that there was a
possibility that someone from Natrapharm might have known of Zuneca's use of
"ZYNAPS" because Natrapharm and Zuneca attended the same conferences
and that Zuneca had listed "ZYNAPS" in the PPD publication.
Such possibility is not, however, sufficient to prove bad faith,
especially when weighed against Natrapharm's evidence and explanation on how it
coined "ZYNAPSE" and the steps it took to ensure that there were no
other marks that were confusingly similar to it. Not only was Natrapharm able
to explain the origin of the name, it was also able to show that it had checked
the IMS-PPI, IPO, and BFAD databases and found that there was no brand name
which was confusingly similar to "ZYNAPSE."
Since Natrapharm was not shown to have been in bad faith, it is
thus considered to have acquired all the rights of a trademark owner under the
IP Code upon the registration of the "ZYNAPSE" mark.
Consequently, Zuneca's counterclaims against Natrapharm were
correctly dismissed by the lower courts. To be sure, Zuneca did not have any
right to prevent third parties, including Natrapharm, from using marks
confusingly similar to its unregistered "ZYNAPS" mark because it is
not an "owner of a registered mark" contemplated in Section 147.1 of
the IP Code.
In any event, while Natrapharm is the owner of the
"ZYNAPSE" mark, this does not, however, automatically mean that its
complaint against Zuneca for injunction, trademark infringement, damages, and
destruction with prayer for TRO and/or preliminary injunction should be
granted. The application of Section 159.1 of the IP Code in the case at
bar results in Zuneca's exemption from liability for trademark infringement.
On the interpretation of Section 159.1 of the IP Code,
Natrapharm argues that the limitation to actions for infringement under this
section means that only acts prior to the filing and/or claim of priority of
the registered mark are exempted. The good faith prior user's use of the mark
subsequent to the filing and/or registration date is, however, no longer
exempted and makes the prior user liable for infringement. This echoes the CA
which held that:
Moreover, the supremacy of the prior registrant
over the prior user is further elucidated in Section 159.1 of the same law x x
x.
xxx xxx xxx
Based on [said] provision,
it is manifest that the prior-registrant (sic) cannot run
after the prior-user (sic) for any usage before the registration,
but not after, as indicated by the helping verb "was" in the phrase
"was using the mark for the purposes of his business or enterprise."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Court believes, and so holds, that the above interpretation is
erroneous.
If Section 159.1 of the IP Code is only meant to exempt
from an action for infringement the use in good faith prior to the filing or
priority date of the subsequently registered mark, then this entire provision
would be rendered useless and a mere surplusage. Stated otherwise, there is no
point in adding Section 159.1 of the IP Code as an exception under
"Limitations to Actions for Infringement" because it merely repeats
the general rule that, after the mark has been registered, the registrant may
file an infringement case against third parties using an identical or
confusingly similar mark in commerce without its consent, when such use results
in a likelihood of confusion. Even without Section 159.1 of the IP Code,
a third party's prior use of an unregistered mark, if said mark subsequently
becomes registered by another, could not be considered as trademark
infringement because there was no trademark registration — a requirement for a
trademark infringement action to prosper — when the third party was using its
mark.
More importantly, the proviso of Section 159.1 of the IP Code
states: "[t]hat [the good faith prior user's] right may only be
transferred or assigned together with his enterprise or business or with that
part of his enterprise or business in which the mark is used." To adhere
to the theories of the CA and Natrapharm that the prior user's use of the
identical or confusingly similar mark subsequent to the filing or registration
date of the registered mark should be considered as trademark infringement
renders this proviso useless and nugatory and logically subjects the possible
transferee or assignee to inevitable liability for trademark infringement. The
lawmakers could not have intended this absurd outcome.
Read as a whole, Section 159.1 of the IP Code clearly
contemplates that a prior user in good faith may continue to use its mark
even after the registration of the mark by the first-to-file registrant in good
faith, subject to the condition that any transfer or assignment of the
mark by the prior user in good faith should be made together with the
enterprise or business or with that part of his enterprise or business in which
the mark is used. The mark cannot be transferred independently of the
enterprise and business using it.
From the provision itself, it can be gleaned that while the law
recognizes the right of the prior user in good faith to the continuous use of
its mark for its enterprise or business, it also respects the rights of the
registered owner of the mark by preventing any future use by the transferee or
assignee that is not in conformity with Section 159.1 of the IP Code.
Notably, only the manner of use by the prior user in good faith — that is, the
use of its mark tied to its current enterprise or business — is categorically
mentioned as an exception to an action for infringement by the trademark owner.
The proviso in Section 159.1 of the IP Code ensures that, despite the
transfer or assignment of its mark, the future use by the assignee or
transferee will not go beyond the specific confines of such exception. Without
the proviso, the prior user in good faith would have the free hand to transfer
or assign the "protected use" of its mark for any purpose to a third
person who may subsequently use the same in a manner unduly curtailing the
rights of the trademark owner. Indeed, this unilateral expansion of the
exception by a third person could not have been intended, and is guarded
against, by the legislature through the foregoing proviso.
In any event, the application of Section 159.1 of the IP Code
necessarily results in at least two entities — the unregistered prior user in
good faith or their assignee or transferee, on one hand; and the first-to-file
registrant in good faith on the other — concurrently using identical or
confusingly similar marks in the market, even if there is likelihood of
confusion. While this situation may not be ideal, as eruditely explained in
the Concurring Opinion of Justice Perlas-Bernabe, the Court is constrained to
apply Section 159.1 of the IP Code as written.
To recall, the RTC imposed on Zuneca the following penalties in
light of its finding that Zuneca had committed trademark infringement, which
penalties were later affirmed by the CA:
Defendants, jointly and severally, are hereby
directed to pay the plaintiff the following amounts, to wit:
One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as damages;
One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as exemplary damages;
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) as attorney's fees;
and the Costs.
Defendants are further enjoined from henceforth
using Zynaps or any other variations thereto which are confusingly similar to
the plaintiff's Zynapse.
It is likewise ordered that all infringing
goods, labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, and
advertisements in possession of the defendants, bearing the registered mark or
any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colourable imitation thereof, all
plates, molds, matrices and other means of making the same, implements,
machines, and other items related to the conduct, and predominantly used, by
the defendants in such infringing activities, be disposed of outside the
channels of commerce or destroyed, without compensation.
The counterclaim of the defendants is DISMISSED
for lack of merit.
Because Zuneca is not liable for trademark infringement under
Section 159.1 of the IP Code, the Court finds that there is no basis for
the above imposition of penalties.
The penalties ordered by the lower courts — that is, the payment
of damages, injunction, and destruction of goods of Zuneca — are based on
Sections 156 and 157 of the IP Code, which provide:
SECTION 156. Actions, and Damages
and Injunction for Infringement. — 156.1. The owner of a registered
mark may recover damages from any person who infringes his rights, and
the measure of the damages suffered shall be either the reasonable profit which
the complaining party would have made, had the defendant not infringed his
rights, or the profit which the defendant actually made out of the
infringement, or in the event such measure of damages cannot be readily
ascertained with reasonable certainty, then the court may award as damages a
reasonable percentage based upon the amount of gross sales of the defendant or
the value of the services in connection with which the mark or trade name was
used in the infringement of the rights of the complaining party. (Sec. 23,
first par., R.A. No. 166a)
156.2. On application of the complainant,
the court may impound during the pendency of the action, sales invoices and
other documents evidencing sales. (n)
156.3. In cases where actual intent to
mislead the public or to defraud the complainant is shown, in the discretion of
the court, the damages may be doubled. (Sec. 23, first par., R.A. No. 166)
156.4. The complainant, upon proper
showing, may also be granted injunction. (Sec. 23, second par., R.A. No.
166a)
SECTION 157. Power of Court to Order Infringing
Material Destroyed. — 157.1 In any action arising under this
Act, in which a violation of any right of the owner of the registered mark is
established, the court may order that goods found to be infringing be,
without compensation of any sort, disposed of outside the channels of
commerce in such a manner as to avoid any harm caused to the right holder, or
destroyed; and all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles
and advertisements in the possession of the defendant, bearing the registered
mark or trade name or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable
imitation thereof, all plates, molds, matrices and other means of making the
same, shall be delivered up and destroyed. (Emphasis supplied)
A plain reading of the above provisions reveals that that these
remedies may only be ordered by the court if there was a finding that a party
had committed infringement. Here, because of the application of Section 159.1
of the IP Code, Zuneca is not liable for trademark infringement.
Consequently, it follows that the award of damages, issuance of an injunction,
and the disposition and/or destruction of allegedly infringing goods could not
be ordered by the court.
Indeed, directing the foregoing remedies despite a finding of the
existence of a prior user in good faith would render useless Section 159.1 of
the IP Code, which allows the continued use and, in certain situations,
the transfer or assignment of its mark by the prior user in good faith after
the registration by the first-to-file registrant. To reiterate, Section 159.1
of the IP Code contemplates a situation where the prior user in good
faith and the first-to-file registrant in good faith concurrently use identical
or confusingly similar marks in the market, even if there is likelihood of
confusion.
While Section 147.1 of the IP Code provides that the owner
of a registered mark shall have the exclusive right to prevent third parties'
use of identical or similar marks for identical or similar goods where such use
would result in a likelihood of confusion, this provision should be
interpreted in harmony with Section 159.1 of the IP Code, especially
the latter's proviso which allows the transfer or assignment of the mark
together with the enterprise or business of the prior user in good faith or
with that part of his enterprise or business in which the mark is used. The
lawmakers intended for the rights of the owner of the registered mark in
Section 147.1 to be subject to the rights of a prior user in good faith
contemplated under Section 159.1. Essentially, therefore, Section 159.1 is an
exception to the rights of the trademark owner in Section 147.1 of the IP
Code.
Bearing in mind the current ownership regime based on registration
under the IP Code which likewise protects and respects the rights of
prior users in good faith, it is thus reasonable to infer that the new system
of acquiring ownership effectively protects potential entrants in the market.
Consistent with the expressed State policy under the law, the system under the
IP Code encourages potential market entrants who may lack resources to
venture into business with the assurance that their intellectual property
rights are protected and may be enforced under the law, especially if they
register their marks.
By having a uniform, easily-verifiable system of acquiring
ownership, potential entrepreneurs have the guarantee that once they avail in
good faith of the relatively inexpensive procedure of registration with the
IPO, they already have the upper-hand against someone who could make a claim of
ownership based on a supposed "prior use" — an issue that may entail
expensive and extensive litigation effectively favoring those who have more
resources. As explained, due to the change in the language of Section 123.1 of
the IP Code, the registered owners in good faith who dutifully maintain
their registrations generally do not have to worry that their rights over the
registered mark may one day be subject to a cancellation proceeding by someone
with claims of prior actual use. This uniform system of ownership also gives a
sense of stability to potential foreign entrepreneurs wanting to offer their
products and services in the Philippines because, if they register their marks
in good faith and diligently maintain said marks, they no longer have to worry
about their ownership over the mark being attacked by someone appearing out of
the blue claiming to be a local prior user of the mark all along. Such sense of
stability given by the current system of acquiring trademark ownership is in
consonance with the expressed State policy that describes an effective
intellectual and industrial property system as one that "attracts foreign
investments."
In the same vein, those who do not have the resources to apply for
trademark registrations are protected from infringement cases and may exercise
certain rights under the law, albeit their rights under the IP Code are
more limited compared to the owners of the mark.
Lastly, as additional rationale for initiating the complaint for
trademark infringement against Zuneca and presumably to prevent the coexistence
of the subject marks in the market, Natrapharm points out the dire consequence
of the possibility of medical switching in the case at bar, especially since
"ZYNAPSE" and "ZYNAPS" are admitted to be confusingly
similar. Allegedly, if a stroke patient who is supposed to take citicoline
("ZYNAPSE") mistakenly ingests carbamazepine
("ZYNAPS"), said patient will not only be not cured of stroke but
also be exposed to the risk of suffering Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a side
effect of carbamazepine, which is a serious systemic body-wide allergic
reaction with a characteristic rash which attacks and disfigures the skin and
mucous membrane.
While there is no issue as to the likelihood of confusion between
"ZYNAPSE" and "ZYNAPS," the Court believes that the evil of
medical switching will likely not arise, considering that the law requires the
generic names of drugs to be written in prescriptions.
R.A. 6675 146 (Generics Act
of 1988), as amended by R.A. 9502 147 or the Universally
Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008, reads:
SEC. 6. Who Shall Use Generic
Terminology. — (a) All government health agencies and their personnel as
well as other government agencies shall use generic terminology or
generic names in all transactions related to purchasing, prescribing,
dispensing and administering of drugs and medicines.
(b) All medical, dental and veterinary
practitioners, including private practitioners, shall write prescriptions using
the generic name. The brand name may be included if so desired. (Emphasis
supplied)
Pertinently, the said law also provides for the appropriate
penalties for failure to comply with these requirements. Section 12 of the Generics
Act of 1988, as amended, reads:
SEC. 12. Penalty. — (A) Any person
who shall violate Section 6(a) or 6(b) of this Act shall suffer the penalty
graduated hereunder, viz.:
(a) for the first conviction, he shall
suffer the penalty of reprimand which shall be officially recorded in the
appropriate books of the Professional Regulation Commission.
(b) for the second conviction, the penalty
of fine in the amount of not less than Ten thousand pesos (Php10,000.00) but
not exceeding Twenty-five thousand pesos (Php25,000.00), at the discretion of
the court.
(c) for the third conviction, the penalty
of fine in the amount of not less than Twenty-five thousand pesos
(Php25,000.00) but not exceeding Fifty thousand pesos (Php50,000.00) and
suspension of his license to practice his profession for sixty (60) days at the
discretion of the court.
(d) for the fourth and subsequent
convictions, the penalty of fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos
(Php100,000.00) and suspension of his license to practice his profession for
one (1) year or longer at the discretion of the court.
xxx xxx xxx
(C) The Secretary of Health shall have the
authority to impose administrative sanctions such as suspension or cancellation
of license to operate or recommend suspension of license to practice profession
to the Professional Regulation Commission as the case may be for the violation
of this Act.
The administrative sanctions that shall be
imposed by the Secretary of the Department of Health shall be in a graduated
manner in accordance with Section 12.A.
An administrative case may be instituted
independently from the criminal case: Provided, That, the dismissal of the
criminal case or the withdrawal of the same shall in no instance be a ground
for the dismissal of the administrative case.
Still, even as the Generics Act of 1988, as amended,
provides protection to the consumers — and despite the Court's recognition of
the respective rights under the IP Code of the first registrant in good
faith and the prior user in good faith — the Court is nonetheless mindful of
potential switching of medicines. As amply elaborated by Justice Gesmundo in
his Concurring Opinion, the issue on likelihood of confusion on medicines may
pose a significant threat to public health, hence, there is a need to improve
our intellectual property laws and the government's manner of regulation of
drug names to prevent the concurrent use in the market of confusingly similar
names for medicines.
To further reduce therefore, if not totally eliminate, the
likelihood of switching in this case, the Court hereby orders the parties to
prominently state on the packaging of their respective products, in plain
language understandable by people with no medical background or training,
the medical conditions that their respective drugs are supposed to treat or
alleviate and a warning indicating what "ZYNAPS" is not
supposed to treat and what "ZYNAPSE" is not supposed to treat,
given the likelihood of confusion between the two.
As well, by this Decision, the Court furnishes the Food and Drug
Administration a copy of this decision, and accordingly directs it to monitor
the continuing compliance by the parties of the above directives.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
petition is PARTLY GRANTED and the Court hereby declares petitioners ZUNECA
PHARMACEUTICAL AND/OR AKRAM ARAIN AND/OR VENUS ARAIN, M.D., AND STYLE OF ZUNECA
PHARMACEUTICAL as the prior users in good faith of the "ZYNAPS"
mark and accordingly protected under Section 159.1 of the Intellectual
Property Code of the Philippines.
The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 99787, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City, Branch 93 dated December 2, 2011, are AFFIRMED insofar
as they declared respondent NATRAPHARM, INC. as the lawful registrant of
the "ZYNAPSE" mark under the Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines, and are SET ASIDE insofar as they hold petitioners
liable for trademark infringement and damages, directed the destruction of
petitioners' goods, and enjoined petitioners from using "ZYNAPS."
Petitioners' application for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
ZUNECA PHARMACEUTICAL AND/OR AKRAM ARAIN AND/OR
VENUS ARAIN, M.D., AND STYLE OF ZUNECA PHARMACEUTICAL and NATRAPHARM,
INC. are likewise ORDERED to: (1) indicate on their respective
packaging, in plain language understandable by people with no medical
background or training, the medical conditions that their respective drugs
are supposed to treat or alleviate and a warning indicating what
"ZYNAPS" is not supposed to treat and what "ZYNAPSE"
is not supposed to treat; and (2) submit to the Court a written report
showing compliance with this directive within thirty (30) days from receipt of
this Decision.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Food and Drug
Administration which is, by this Decision, directed to monitor the parties'
continuing compliance with the above directives.
Let copies of this Decision likewise be forwarded to the Senate
President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Intellectual
Property Office, for their information and guidance.