Philippines: Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases to take effect on 16 November 2020

In brief

Recent Developments

The Supreme Court recently issued amendments to the Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases. The 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (Revised Rules) will take effect on 16 November 2020. In light of the objectives of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IP Code) to develop domestic and creative activity, to facilitate transfer of technology, to attract foreign investments and to ensure market access for local products, the Revised Rules were promulgated to expedite the resolution of disputes involving trademarks, patents, copyrights and other intellectual property (IP) rights.

Concerned individuals or entities must take note of the various requirements and changes introduced by the Revised Rules in relation to the resolution of various IP rights cases in the Philippines.

Quisumbing Torres is able to advise on all kinds of disputes involving trademarks, patents, copyrights and other IP rights, and may assist in navigating the Revised Rules to ensure that benefits from the same are maximized and effectively availed of.


Why this affects you

The Revised Rules introduce substantial changes to the IP litigation process, and will have a significant effect on how companies approach, avoid or prepare for litigation.

Applicability

The Revised Rules will apply to newly-filed cases (i.e., those filed on or after 16 November 2020). It will also apply to all pending IP cases as of the effectivity date, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court, application of the Revised Rules would not be feasible or would work injustice.

Salient Changes Introduced by the Revised Rules

1. Timeline for the promulgation of judgment

Rule 8, Section 1 of the Revised Rules provides for a shorter period of sixty (60) calendar days after pre-trial for the court to render judgement. This is in contrast to the applicable period for regular cases provided for in the recently issued Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, which gives the court ninety (90) calendar days from the termination of pre-trial to promulgate its decision. This amendment can hopefully contribute to the speedy disposition of IP rights cases in the Philippines, and consequently lead to the declogging of court dockets.

2. New rule on Special Commercial Courts

Under the Revised Rules, the Special Commercial Courts in Baguio City, Iloilo City, Cebu City, Cagayan de Oro City and Davao City, in addition to the previously authorized Special Commercial Courts in Quezon City, Manila City, Makati City, and Pasig City, shall also be vested with the authority to act on applications for the issuance of writs of search and seizure in both civil and criminal actions. Such search warrants shall be enforceable nationwide. This is a significant amendment since it increased the number of Special Commercial Courts that have the authority to issue search warrants which can be enforced anywhere in the Philippines.

3. Prohibited pleadings and motions

The prohibited pleadings and motions contained in Rule 3, Section 4 of the old rules have also been amended to allow for motions to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentiares judicata and prescription. Likewise, the Revised Rules also allow for motions for postponement, but only if it is based on acts of God, force majeure or physical inability of the witness to appear and to testify. The grounds raised for the postponement of the hearing due to physical inability of the witness to appear must be justified and substantiated. Thus, the Revised Rules are more detailed and allows for more leeway in the allowance of both motions to dismiss and motions for postponement.

4. Integration of the salient features of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure in the Revised Rules

In revising the old rules, the salient and significant features of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure were integrated into the current Revised Rules. The Revised Rules now require the complaint and the answer to include the evidence in support thereof. Furthermore, the answer by the defendant to the complaint shall similarly be filed within thirty (30) calendar days from service of summons, while the answer to counterclaims or cross-claims shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) calendar days from service of the answer in which they are pleaded.

Under Rule 3, Section 4(c), replies are no longer prohibited as long as an actionable document is attached in the answer. The Revised Rules also incorporate the amended provision of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure on substituted service of summons. In relation to the foregoing, extraterritorial service of summons, as provided for in international conventions to which the Philippines is a party, shall now also be allowed in the Revised Rules.

Lastly, similar to the language employed in the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the Revised Rules are now also considered as gender-sensitive.

5. Integration of the salient features of the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases in the Revised Rules

In relation to the applicable provisions for criminal cases, the salient points of the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases were incorporated and adopted into the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. These include the incorporation of additional grounds for prohibited motions, the mandatory use of judicial affidavits, the simultaneous setting of arraignment and pre-trial, austere rules on postponement, proper scheduling of the trial of cases, proper stipulation of facts and testimonies of witnesses, and other related rules intended to expedite the resolution of criminal cases.

6. Use of electronic means in relation to the various modes of discovery

In relation to the modes of discovery, the Revised Rules provide that courts may now allow a deponent to give his or her deposition through electronic means. Furthermore, the present rules also state that the other modes of discovery under the Rules of Court, including the use of electronic means, shall be allowed. This is a significant change from the present practice since depositions and other modes of discovery may now be conducted via teleconferencing, videoconferencing and other electronic means.

This amendment can prove very useful, especially during the current pandemic, wherein different community quarantine schemes are imposed resulting in travel restrictions and the enforcement of social distancing protocols.

7. Proof of actual use of a mark in trademark infringement and unfair competition cases

In contrast to the old rules, the Revised Rules enumerate which shall be accepted as proof of actual use of a mark in trademark infringement and unfair competition cases.

Rule 18, Section 2 of the Revised Rules consider the following as proof of actual use of the mark:

(a) labels of the mark as it is used;

(b) downloaded pages from the website of the applicant or registrant clearly showing that the goods are being sold or the services are being rendered in the Philippines;

(c) photographs, including digital photographs printed on ordinary paper, of goods bearing the marks as these are actually used or of the stamped or marked container of goods and of the establishment/s where the services are being rendered;

(d) brochures or advertising materials showing the actual use of the mark on the goods being sold or services being rendered in the Philippines;

(e) for online sale, receipts of sale of the goods or services rendered or other similar evidence of use, showing that the goods are placed on the market or the services are available in the Philippines or that the transaction took place in the Philippines;

(f) copies of contracts for services showing the use of the mark.
Computer printouts of the drawing or reproduction of marks will not be accepted as evidence of use; and

(g) such other proofs that the court may deem acceptable.

It is also provide that computer printouts of the drawing or reproduction of marks will not be accepted as evidence of use.

The foregoing enumeration adopts the acceptable proof of use of a mark as reflected in the current Trademark Regulations issued by the Philippine Intellectual Property Office.

8. Disposal of infringing goods, related objects or devices

The Revised Rules provide that even when no criminal complaint is filed but the seized goods are hazardous, the court should order their destruction. Moreover, the Revised Rules provide that if no criminal complaint and motion for the return of the seized items are filed by the parties, the court may subject the seized goods to disposal and/or destruction.

Likewise, the Revised Rules include the manner or method of disposal of infringing goods, related objects or devices, depending on their nature and circumstances and whether the foregoing are hazardous or not. Crushing, shredding, discarding at sanitary landfills, incineration, encapsulation or other methods that do not pose any risk to the environment or public health and safety as methods of destruction may be allowed by the court, depending on the nature and circumstances of the infringing goods, related objects or devices.

However, open burning or placement of these goods in non-sanitary and open landfills are not allowed. Courts may also issue an order disposing of the infringing goods, related objects or devices by recycling or by way of donation for humanitarian use, subject to certain conditions provided for by the Revised Rules.

9. Market survey as evidence to prove the primary significance of a mark or its likelihood of confusion

The Revised Rules include a new provision on market survey as evidence to prove the primary significance, distinctiveness or status of a mark to the relevant public, including its distinctiveness, its descriptive or generic status, its strength or well-known status. It can also be offered in evidence to prove likelihood of confusion. A market survey is defined under the Revised Rules as a scientific market or consumer survey which a party may offer in evidence before the courts of justice.

This provision relating to the offer of a market survey in evidence before the courts of justice to prove the primary significance of a mark or its likelihood of confusion is not present in the old rules.

10. Application of and adherence to the Revised Rules

Lastly, a new provision was incorporated in the Revised Rules for monitoring the application of and adherence of concerned individuals to the present rules. Rule 22 of the Revised Rules specifically provides that the application of and adherence to the rules shall be subject to the periodic monitoring of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) by visitation and submission of data.

For this purpose, all courts covered by the Revised Rules shall accomplish and submit a periodic report of data in a form to be generated and distributed by the OCA. Moreover, Rule 22 of the Revised Rules also mandates the training of judges and court personnel by the Philippine Judicial Academy in coordination with the OCA. This new provision ensures that the Revised Rules will be implemented properly and efficiently by the courts.

LOGO Philippines_QuisumbingTorres_Manila

*Authored by Quisumbing Torres, a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a Swiss Verein. Please contact QTInfoDesk@quisumbingtorres.com for inquiries.


Copyright © 2022 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.