APAA 2004 Philippine Group Report

The Philippine Group Report

By: Aleli Angela G. Quirino Philippine Group President

This report covers the period from 01 September 2004 up to 20 September 2005.

CHANGES IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS

Rules & Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9239 otherwise known as the Optical Media Act of 2003

In February 2005, the Optical Media Board (“OMB”), under the Office of President, promulgated the Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9239 (Implementing Rules”), otherwise known as the Optical Media Act of 2003 which took effect on 02 March 2004.

The Implementing Rules enhance the provisions of the Optical Media Act by:

a) authorizing the OMB to conduct inspections of establishments and if necessary, use reasonable force during inspections in case the responsible persons of these establishments evade, obstruct or refuse such inspection;

b) authorizing the OMB to take into preventive custody all optical media, materials or equipment when there is reasonable ground to believe that a violation of the Act has been committed, is being committed or is about to be committed;

c) directing all persons engaged in the activities enumerated in the Implementing Rules (Section 1, Rule 1, Title II)1 to keep and maintain for a period of five (5) years, true and complete records of all activities related to the conduct of its business and requiring the submission of such records upon request;

d) providing clear and concise rules with respect to the securing of licenses from the OMB; and

e) imposing administrative sanctions against violators of the Act such as closure of the erring establishment, imposition of administrative fines, confiscation of equipment and suspension of operations, among others. Repeated offenses are likewise penalized (i.e., twice the amount of the fine prescribed for the offense).

CHANGES IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PRACTICE

1. Trademarks

IPO Office Order No. 124, Series of 2004, on the Publication of Trademarks in the IPO E-Gazette (25 November 2004)

The Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”) under Office Order No. 124 and pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 8792 otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act, directed the publication of examined trademark applications in the IPO E-Gazette (for opposition purposes), which is regularly released on the IPO website. As in the past, interested parties are given a period of thirty (30) days from the publication of an application in the IPO E-Gazette, within which to file their oppositions. Under Office Order No. 124, notices of cancellation, surrender, disclaimer and correction shall also be published in the IPO E-Gazette.

IPO Office Order No. 125, Series of 2004, on the Rules governing the Trademark Electronic Filing System (26 November 2004)

The Office Order allows the electronic filing of trademark applications using the Trademark Electronic Filing System of the IPO. The Order provides that applicants who choose to avail of this service are required to a) submit a duly accomplished electronic application form; b) transmit an electronic reproduction of the mark in accordance with the prescribed specifications; and c) pay the applicable filing fees through the IPO’s authorized gateway facility.

The implementation of the Order has been suspended due to various administrative issues as well as the position taken by the IPAP whose members comprise the APAA Philippine Group. IPO Office Order No. 133, Series of 2004, on the Authority to Sign Interlocutory Orders in Connection with Appealed Cases and Disputes under the IP Code (20 December 2004)

The Office Order authorizes Dep. Dir. General Ireneo M. Galicia to sign interlocutory orders in connection with cases appealed to the Office of the Director General and disputes under the IP Code. The authority granted does not extend to signing final orders such as those granting motions to dismiss or dismissals pursuant to Section 05 of the IPO Uniform Rules on Appeal.

IPO Office Order No. 134, Series of 2004, on the Rules on the Mediation of cases before the IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs (22 December 2004)

The Order establishes the rules governing the mediation of cases pending with the IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs (“BLA”) in Inter Partes Cases and Intellectual Property Rights Violations Cases. The Order provides that during the pre-trial stage, the parties shall be invited to mediation by the IPO with the end view of entering into a compromise settlement. Should the parties agree to mediation, they will be allowed to mutually choose a mediator from a list of accredited mediators. A compromise agreement between the parties approved by the BLA Director shall have the effect of a decision/judgment and shall be enforced accordingly. The failure of the parties to reach a compromise agreement within sixty (60) days from the date of the mediation conference or the disapproval of an amended agreement as directed by the BLA Director shall be deemed a failure of mediation. The BLA Director shall, thereafter, order the continuance of the proceedings.

IPO Office Order No. 139, Series of 2004, on the Restoration of Cancelled Trademark Registrations (23 December 2004)

Under the Order, the IPO Director General enjoined the Director of Trademarks from cancelling trademark registrations issued under Republic Act No. 166 (“Old Trademark Law”) and subsisting as of 01 January 1998 on the ground of failure to file the requisite Declarations of Actual Use within one (1) year from the fifth anniversary of said registrations. The Order was issued in accordance with Director General’s favorable ruling on the request of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. for the reversal of the actions of the Director of Trademarks cancelling the various trademark registrations issued under the Old Trademark Law, in favor of the said corporation.

Accordingly, Registration Nos. 5470 to 63950 and those registered from 01 February 1993 to 23 December 1996 which were previously cancelled, have been restored, subject to the filing of the corresponding Declarations/Affidavits of Actual Use (for Registration Nos. 54070 to 56740).

IPO Office Order Nos. 140 and 141, Series of 2004, on the Streamlining of Trademark Registration / Request for Publication for Opposition and its Implementing Guidelines (23 December 2004)

The Order allows an applicant to request for the early publication of its trademark application where the application has been pending for eleven (11) months or longer, for purposes of opposition, subject to the discretion of the Director of the Bureau of Trademarks. The Order covers only those applications which have fulfilled the formality and registrability requirements under the IP Code and does not cover those applications which are the subject of Inter Partes Cases or Intellectual Property Rights Violation Cases, including those appealed to the IPO Director General, the regular courts, Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. The Order includes a schedule to be

followed by applicants in requesting for the early publication of their applications.2

IPO Office Order No. 142, Series of 2004, amending the Trademark Regulations on Publication in the IPO E-Gazette (23 December2004)

Rule 700 of the Rules and Regulation on Trademarks does not provide a penalty for the applicant’s failure to pay the required publication and issuance fees.

The Order amends Rule 700 by directing an applicant to pay, within two (2) months from the mailing date of the notice, the corresponding fee for the publication of its application in the IPO E-Gazette. The failure to pay the required fees shall result in the abandonment of the application, which, however, may be revived subject to the requirements of the trademark rules and regulations.

IPO Office Order No. 143, Series of 2004, on the Processing of Pending Trademark Applications (23 December 2004)

The Order directs all Trademark Examiners to ensure that the initial action, which shall now be entitled the “Registrability Report”, contains all of their findings on the registrability of the mark being applied for pursuant to the formal and substantive requirements under the IP Code. Accordingly, and to ensure an exhaustive formality / substantive examination and the issuance of a comprehensive Registrability Report, Trademark Examiners are given a maximum period of four (4) months from the date of the assignment of the trademark application, to examine the application and issue the Registrability Report.

The Order was issued in line with the IPO’s goal to unclog its dockets and to expedite the processing of trademark applications.

IPO Office Order No. 79, Series of 2005 (15 August 2005) and Bureau of Legal Affairs Memorandum Circular No. 03 on the Amendments to the Regulations on Inter Partes Proceedings, and the Guidelines for the Implementation of IPO Office Order No. 79 (08 September 2005)

The IPO recently promulgated the Amendments to the Regulations on Inter Partes Proceedings (“Amendments to the Regulations”) which took effect on 01 September 20053 and its corresponding Guidelines (“Guidelines”)4 in an effort to expedite the prosecution and resolution of such proceedings. Basically, the Amendments to the Regulations and Guidelines seek to expedite Inter Partes proceedings by limiting the prosecution of such cases to the filing of pleadings, affidavits and other documentary evidence. Consequently, witnesses are no longer required to personally appear before the IPO as their testimonies shall be incorporated in affidavits, which significantly, are no longer subject to cross-examination by the other party.

Provided below are the other salient features of the Guidelines and the Amendments to the Regulations.

Initially, the Guidelines state that all Inter Partes cases filed after 01 September 2005 shall be governed by the summary rules provided for under the Amendments to the Regulations. With regard however to Inter Partes cases filed before 01 September 2005, the same shall be governed as follows:

a) Where no Answer has yet been filed, the opposer or petitioner shall be required to amend the Opposition or Petition to conform with the provisions of the Amendments to the Regulations within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice.5

b) Where an Answer has been filed, the BLA shall notify the parties to file all their evidence duly marked in accordance with the Amendments to the Regulations, within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice.6

c) Where the case is scheduled for pre-trial or undergoing pre-trial, the BLA shall cancel the scheduled pre-trial and notify the parties to submit all their evidences duly marked in accordance with the Amendments to the Regulations within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice.7

d) Where the case has undergone pre-trial, regardless of the stage of the proceedings, the BLA shall direct the parties to inform the BLA in writing within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Order whether or not they agree to be governed by the Amendments to the Regulations. If both parties agree, the pre-trial conference shall be considered the preliminary conference and the Hearing Officer shall give opportunity to the parties to submit or complete their respective evidence. Failure to inform the BLA shall be construed as consent to be governed by the Amendments to the Regulations. If only one party agrees or both parties disagree, the conduct of the hearing shall be governed by the old rules.8

Under the relevant provisions of the Amendment to the Regulations, the Opposition, together with the affidavits of the witnesses and originals of the documents and other requirements, shall be filed with the BLA, provided that in the case of public documents, certified copies shall be allowed.

The respondent shall file its verified answer within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Notice to Answer. The BLA may grant an additional period of thirty (30) days. Thereafter extensions will be granted only upon showing of the most compelling reason.9 The opposer can file a reply within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of the answer and the respondent may file a rejoinder within the same period from receipt of the reply.

Within fifteen (15) days after the last responsive pleading has been filed, the Director of the BLA may render a decision based on the pleadings filed.10 However, the BLA may opt to schedule a preliminary conference within forty-five (45) days but not less than thirty (30) days from receipt of the last pleading for the following purposes:11

a) Submission of the case for mediation;
b) Possibility of an amicable settlement; and
c) Clarification of issues.

Upon termination of the preliminary conference, the Hearing Officer shall require the parties to submit their respective position papers and, if desired, draft decisions within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of the order.12 Within forty-five (45) days from the date on which the case was submitted for decision, the Director of the BLA shall render a decision.

Under the Amendment to the Regulations and its Guidelines, an Inter Partes case would take approximately eight (08) to nine (09) months from the filing of the case up to its resolution by the BLA.

2. Patents

Memorandum Circular No. PCT-2005-05, Series of 2004, on the Adjustment in the Handling Fee Charged by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) in its Capacity as International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) (21 October 2004)

Memorandum Circular No. PCT-2005-01, Series of 2005 on the Adjustment in the Equivalent Amount in US$ of the PCT Fees (26 January 2005)

Memorandum Circular No. PCT-2005-02, Series of 2005 on the Adjustment in the Search Fee Charged by the European Patent Office (EPO) in its Capacity as International Searching Authority (ISA) (09 February 2005)

3. Copyright

Supreme Court Resolution Amending the Conditions on the Commercial Exploitation of Supreme Court Decisions under A.M. No. 04-7-06-SC (Published on 26 August 2005)

While Section 184 (k) of the IP Code does not consider the use of a work for the purpose of any judicial proceedings or for the giving of professional advice by a legal practitioner as copyright infringement, the Supreme Court, under this Resolution, seeks to impose reasonable conditions on the commercialization of its decisions in view of the practice of private entities in compiling and selling the compiled decisions to the public, and even to the Court itself.

Under the Resolution, authors of legal treatises and student textbooks may reproduce decisions of the Supreme Court without need of securing prior written approval, subject to the following conditions:

a. The author shall provide the Supreme Court Library with two (2) copies of the legal treatise or student textbook;

b. The Supreme Court Library shall have the right to digitize the legal treatise or student textbook for exclusive use for research purposes by members of the judiciary in connection with judicial proceedings.

On the other hand, any person may compile and reproduce decisions of the Supreme Court for commercial exploitation upon prior written approval of the Supreme Court, subject to the following conditions:

a) the compiler / seller shall provide the Supreme Court with twenty (20) free copies of the compilation as compiled and sold to the public;

b) The Supreme Court Library shall have the right to digitize the compilation for exclusive use by members of the judiciary;

c) If the compilation is in digitized format, the Supreme Court Library shall have the right to make available such compilation for the exclusive use by members of the judiciary;

d) The Supreme Court shall have the right to purchase copies of the compilation at cost to be used exclusively by members of the judiciary; and

e) The compilation shall bear the notice “Compiled for sale to the public with the permission of the Supreme Court”.

[Note: These conditions are in lieu of royalty payments to the Supreme Court.]

4. Emerging IP Rights

This is a report on the status of the laws and regulations dealing with emerging intellectual property rights in the Philippines.

Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Traditional and Alternative Medicines Act

Republic Act No. 8423 otherwise known as the Traditional and Alternative Medicines Act of 1997 (“TAMA”) provides for the acceleration of the development of traditional and aIternative health care in the Philippines, and seeks to establish a legally workable basis by which indigenous societies can own their knowledge of traditional medicine. When such knowledge is used by outsiders, indigenous societies can require the permitted users to acknowledge its source, and can demand a share of any financial return that may come from its authorized commercial use.

In this regard, TAMA defines intellectual property rights as the legal basis by which indigenous communities exercise their rights to have access to protect, control over their cultural knowledge and product, including but not limited to, traditional medicines, and includes the right to receive compensation for it.

To implement TAMA, rules and regulations (“IRR”) were formulated by the Department of Health-Traditional Health Unit. The IRR provide, among others:

a) Recognition of the existence of community intellectual rights which is defined as a unique set of rights which provides the legal basis for the indigenous and local communities to control, protect, and regulate access to their knowledge systems concerning plants and biological resources used in traditional and alternative health care practices and includes the right to receive benefits from its sustainable utilization as well as the commercialization of products that may be derive from it.

a) In order to protect the biological / genetic resources including indigenous knowledge systems, their exploration and utilization shall be done with the free and prior informed consent of the communities possessing these knowledge systems and living where these resources may be found through the identification and documentation of indigenous knowledge systems.

b) Monitoring and inventory of Philippine natural health products that have been inappropriately applied for intellectual property rights protection in the Philippines and abroad without complying with applicable laws and regulations and shall make representations with the appropriate international institutions of the Government of the Philippines, to cancel this rights or to renegotiate the terms and conditions thereof that are favorable to Philippine interest.

c) The application of existing forms of intellectual property rights on biological and genetic resources as well as indigenous knowledge systems shall be without prejudice to the application of whatever sui generis rights may be provided by law to the appropriate local and indigenous communities.

Developments on Executive Order No. 247 and The Wildlife Resources and Conservation Protection Act On 12 January 2005, Joint DENR-DA-PCSD-NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2005, also known as the Guidelines for Bioprospecting Activities in the Philippines (the “Guidelines”) was approved. The Guidelines were promulgated pursuant to the obligations of the Philippines under the Convention on Biological Diversity and other relevant international agreements, the provisions of Executive Order No. 247 as amended by Section 14 of the Wildlife Act and Section 35 of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act and the TAMA, among others.

Policy wise, the Guidelines provide that the State shall ensure that prior informed consent is obtained from resource providers before allowing any bioprospecting activity, and shall ensure the fair and equitable sharing with the resource providers of benefits derived from the utilization of biological resources. The Guidelines also provide:

a) Scientific studies conducted by researchers with no commercial interests and purely for academic purposes, using biological resources for taxonomy or solely for the characterization of biological, chemical or physical properties of the biological resources, shall not be covered by the Guidelines but by Section 15 of the Wildlife Act provided that subsequent transfer of these biological resources and use of research findings for commercial purposes, shall be considered bioprospecting and subject to the requirements or the Guidelines;

b) Bioprospecting shall be allowed only upon execution of a Bioprospecting Undertaking (BU) between the resource user and the Secretary of the DA and/or DENR, and the Chairperson of the PCSD when the bioprospecting activity is to be conducted in the Province of Palawan;

c) The Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau of the DENR, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources or other concerned regulatory agencies of the DA shall provide separate assistance to resource providers in evaluating proposals for purposes of prior informed consent and in effectively negotiating for benefit-sharing. On the other hand, the NCIP shall lead in assisting indigenous peoples who are resource providers in documenting free and prior informed consent and in negotiating for benefits under the BU;

d) The general procedure for securing a BU, guidelines for prior informed consent and provisions for benefit-sharing arrangement. The resource provider shall designate a representative to negotiate with the resource user provided that only one BU containing the negotiated terms with all provider-groups shall be executed between the resource user and the appropriate signatories. The resource user and providers shall come to an agreement regarding payments of monetary and non-monetary benefits in accordance with established criteria.

With respect to sanctions and penalties under Section 31 of the Guidelines, non-compliance with the provisions in the BU shall result in the automatic cancellation/revocation of the said agreement and confiscation of collected materials in favor of the government, forfeiture of bond and imposition of a perpetual ban on access to biological resources in the Philippines by the violator. Such breach is considered a violation of the Wildlife Act and shall be subject to the imposition of administrative and criminal sanctions under existing laws. Any person who shall conduct bioprospecting without a BU shall be subject to penalties for collection without permit.

RELEVANT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES

1. Significant Decisions of the Supreme Court13

Microsoft Corporation and Lotus Development Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc. (G.R. No. 140946, 13 September 2004)

The case was initiated by Microsoft Corp. and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The court issued search warrants against Maxicorp for alleged copyright infringement and unfair competition. NBI agents conducted a search of Maxicorp’s premises and seized reproductions of Microsoft software, computer hardwares, CD-ROM drives, and other equipments used in the reproduction of Microsoft software.

Maxicorp moved to quash the search warrants alleging that there was no probable cause for their issuance, which Motion was denied by the lower court. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order denying Maxicorp’s Motion to Quash, pointing out that the NBI failed to present, during the preliminary examination, conclusive evidence (i.e., sales receipt) that Maxicorp produced or sold counterfeit products.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that for purposes of determining probable cause, the sales receipt is not the only proof that the sale of Microsoft software occurred. The NBI was able to present the computer unit that was purchased from Maxicorp, in which Maxicorp had pre-installed Microsoft software. A computer technician who demonstrated the presence of Microsoft software in the computer unit was also presented.

The Supreme clarified that copyright infringement and unfair competition are not limited to the act of selling counterfeit goods, and cover a whole range of acts, from copying, assembling, packaging to marketing, including the mere offering for sale of the counterfeit goods. The trial court’s finding of probable cause was based on the NBI’s testimony that they saw several instances when Maxicorp installed Microsoft software into computers it had assembled, and that they saw the sale of Microsoft software within Maxicorp’s premises without any authority from Microsoft. The Supreme Court held that the trial court complied adequately with the requirements of the Constitution and the Rules of Court.

Bayanihan Music Philippines, Inc. v. BMG Records (Pilipinas) and Jose Mari Chan, et., al. (G.R. No. 166337, 7 March 2005)

In this case, the Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction against the celebrated local singer and composer, Jose Mari Chan. The controversy started when Mr. Chan authorized BMG Records to record and distribute two of his compositions. The petitioner sued Mr. Chan for copyright infringement on the strength of the certificates of copyright registrations it obtained as the publisher of the songs. According to the Supreme Court, “being undeniably the composer and author of the lyrics of the two songs, respondent Chan, is protected by the mere fact alone that he is the creator thereof conformably with Sec. 172.2. of the Intellectual Property Code, which reads— works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode of form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose.”

Sony Music Entertainment (Phils.), Inc. and IFPI (Southeast Asia), Ltd., v. Hon. Judge Dolores L. Español of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Dasmariñas, Cavite, Elena S. Lim, Susan L. Tan, David S. Lim, James H. Uy, Wilson Alejandro, Jr., Joseph de Luna, Maria A. Vela Cruz, David Chung, James Uy, John Does and Jane Does, and Solid Laguna Corporation (G.R. No. 156804, 14 March 2005)

The case is a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the order of the respondent judge quashing the search warrants he earlier issued for copyright infringement and violation of the law creating the Videogram Regulatory Board (now, Optical Media Board). In sustaining the quashal order, the Supreme Court, on a procedural point, said that the search warrant was based on the sworn testimonies of persons without personal knowledge of the facts they were testifying on. Thus, there was no probable cause for its issuance.

NBI-Microsoft Corporation & Lotus Development Corporation v. Judy C. Hwang, Benito Keh & Yvonne K. Chua/Beltron Computer Philippines Inc., Jonathan K. Chua, Emily K. Chua, Benito T. Sanchez, Nancy I. Velasco, Alfonso Chua, Alberto Chua, Sophia Ong, Deanna Chua/Taiwan Machinery Display & Trade Center, Inc., and The Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 147043, 21 June 2005)

Microsoft Corp. and Beltron Computer Phils., Inc. entered into a Licensing Agreement where Beltron was authorized to reproduce and install no more than one copy of Microsoft software on each customer system hard disk. Microsoft Corp. terminated the agreement for non-payment of royalties. Upon learning that Beltron was illegally copying and selling Microsoft software, Microsoft Corp. secured search warrants leading to the search of Beltron’s premises which resulted in the seizure of counterfeit Microsoft software.

Microsoft filed a complaint for copyright infringement and unfair competition with the Department of Justice. The DOJ dismissed the complaint on the ground that Beltron had no intent to defraud the public as the software products seized came from an alleged Microsoft licensee in Singapore, and that it did not manufacture the seized software products.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Microsoft Corp. and held that copyright infringement under the Presidential decree 49 (the Old Copyright Law) is not confined to the unauthorized “manufacturing” of intellectual works but covers the unauthorized performance of any of the acts covered by Section 05 of the said Law (i.e., copying, distributing, multiplying and selling), which acts were done by Beltron to the prejudice and damage of Microsoft Corp. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that the counterfeit cd-roms bought from Beltron suffice to support a finding of probable cause for unfair competition under Article 189 (1) of the Revised Penal Code (now repealed by the IP Code) considering that the packaging of these products could not be distinguished from those of authentic Microsoft software. Such replication, together with the similarity in the content of the counterfeit cd-roms, implies an intent to deceive the public. Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. v. Vogue Traders Clothing Company, (G.R. No. 132993, 29 June 2005)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that an action for infringement or unfair competition, including the available remedies of injunction and damages, in the regular courts can proceed independently or simultaneously with an action for administrative cancellation of a registered trademark in the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (now, the Intellectual Property Office). As applied to the present case, petitioner’s prior filing of two inter partes cases against the respondent for the cancellation of the latter’s trademark registrations, namely, “LIVE’S” and “LIVE’S Label Mark”, does not preclude petitioner’s right as a defendant to include in its answer to respondent’s complaint for damages before the trial court, a counterclaim for infringement with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of a preliminary injunction.

Levi Strauss & Co., and Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. v. Clinton Apparelle, Inc., (G.R. No. 138900, 20 September 2005)

In this case, the Supreme Court, affirming a decision of the Court of Appeals, held that the writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order issued by the trial court should be set aside. The Court reasoned that given the single registration of the trademark “Dockers and Design” and considering that respondent only uses the assailed device but a different word mark, the right to prevent the latter from using the challenged “Paddocks” device is far from clear. Stated otherwise, it is not evident whether the single registration of the trademark “Dockers and Design” confers on the owner the right to prevent the use of a fraction thereof in the course of trade. It is also unclear whether the use without the owner’s consent of a portion of a trademark registered in its entirety constitutes material or substantial invasion of the owner’s right.

2. Significant Decisions of the Bureau of Legal Affairs14 OTHER MATTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Special Courts to handle intellectual property cases

In 1995, the Supreme Court designated special courts to handle intellectual property rights cases. In 2003, the special courts earlier designated were consolidated with the specially designated commercial courts in an effort to streamline the court structure and to promote expediency and efficiency in the handling of cases commercial in nature.

The Supreme recently issued an en banc Resolution instructing the court administrator to identify courts in the National Capital Region to be designated as special courts that will exclusively handle intellectual property rights cases.

The Resolution was issued pursuant to the request of IPO Director General Adrian S. Cristobal (“DG Cristobal”). DG Cristobal proposed the creation of the special courts to look into the 1,184 intellectual property-related cases pending resolution as of March 2005, 993 of which are being handled by courts in Metro Manila. According to DG Cristobal, these figures indicate that it may also be necessary to create similar courts in major cities where intellectual property rights violations may also be rampant. The Resolution is a welcome development to the government’s intensified anti-piracy drive to convince the United States to delist the country from the U.S. Trade Representative’s list of countries that violate intellectual property rights, or the Super 301 Watchlist.