B. Trademarks, Service Marks, and Trade Names

Trademarks, Service Marks, and Trade Names

Under Republic Act No. 8293, intellectual property rights specifically include trademarks and service marks¹. The administration and enforcement of these rights are carried out through the Intellectual Property Office, which is divided into six bureaus that include the Bureau of Trademarks and the Bureau of Legal Affairs².

Under Section 165.2(b) of Republic Act No. 8293, any subsequent use by a third party of an identical or similar trade name or mark that is likely to mislead the public constitutes unlawful colorable imitation³. In Isco Holding Corporation v. Nikon Corporation, G.R. No. 256002, 17 November 2025, the Supreme Court held that if an existing well-known trademark is registered in the Philippines, a confusingly similar or identical mark cannot be registered, whether or not both marks are used for identical or similar goods, subject to statutory qualifications³. Confusing similarity is evaluated through the Dominancy Test, and where a mark creates a glaring similarity likely to mislead the public, registration must be denied³. Furthermore, in Prosel Pharmaceuticals & Distributors, Inc. v. Tynor Drug House, Inc., G.R. No. 248021, 30 September 2020, the Court ruled that determining whether goods or services are so related that a likelihood of confusion exists must rest on objective, scientific, and economic standards rather than subjective assessments of factors potentially immaterial to the target market⁴.

Distinct from mark registration disputes, the gravamen of unfair competition is the passing off of one's goods to the public as the goods of another, as emphasized in Samson v. People, G.R. No. 275805, 27 January 2026⁵. Criminal prosecutions for unfair competition require proof beyond reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion or belief cannot substitute for positive proof establishing the accused's malicious intent to deceive the public⁵.