Date of Publication

10-2008

Document Type

Master's Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Business Administration

Subject Categories

Business Administration, Management, and Operations

College

Ramon V. Del Rosario College of Business

Department/Unit

Business Management

Thesis Adviser

Alfredo Molo

Defense Panel Chair

Rachel A. Quero

Defense Panel Member

Dennis Berino
Joseph Roy Rafols

Abstract/Summary

Parium eadem est ratio, idem jus. “Of things equal, the reason is the same, and the same is the law.” The instant study illustrates that however the complicated provisions of the law seem to forbid trademark infringement and provide for the remedy of preliminary injunction. The problems in this study are as follows: 1) What are the remedies of the trademark owner in case of infringement? And 2) What is the best remedy? Based on the research design, it is concluded that to secure writ of preliminary injunction in trademark cases is difficult. The showing of irreparable harm has always been the problem. However, in evaluating the different remedies provided by law against an alleged infringer that interviewees seemed to have different perspective on the remedies for trademark infringement. The legal practitioners would have their minds set on the various remedies available to their aggrieved client by choosing which of the remedies would bring immediate relief to their clients. The judges, while, are focused more on the strict application of the grounds of preliminary injunction by weighing the evidence against the welfare of both parties in the case. On the other hand, the businessman’s main concern is to have his right be protected by law through the remedies provided to him in case of an infringement on his registered trademark thereby affecting the goodwill of his business to the public. The researcher however is of the opinion that all can be resolved in its proper context provided such rules are clearly explained to each individual. Taking into consideration, the rights of each individual in every case of trademark infringement, a lot of cases have been filed relating to it because the law itself provided for remedies for the people to avail of in case their rights have been violated or trampled by others. Such is the case in trademark infringement. Although, it sometimes becomes unfair when the remedy sought for was not successfully obtained, however laws must be applied fairly to both parties involved in the controversy. Based on readings of the different laws, Philippine and American jurisprudence and interviews conducted, all of the remedies provided by Republic Act 8293 to a registered owner whose trademark was infringed are good solutions. They all occupy the same weight although each differs in the weight of evidence to be presented in order for its grant. The remedies are cumulative, not

mutually exclusive to each other, meaning that one can still pursue the other remedies in case the first chosen did not prosper. As to the legal standard used by Philippine courts in the grant of preliminary injunction, all interviewees are unanimous in saying that there is yet a clear standard to be followed. To this, the researcher seeks to propose to adopt the United States standard for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. The Intellectual Property Laws of the United States provides that the upon the plaintiff’s strong showing of confusion on the part of the public as to his goods and goods of the alleged infringer, irreparable injury follows as a matter of course. Proof that there was confusion by the public would entail the hiring of an independent company to conduct the survey and the presentation of receipts before and after the introduction of the alleged infringed trademark to the public. The said survey can be verified if such was conducted fairly and legally without the interference of the plaintiff company while the amount in the receipts can also be verified if such was tampered or altered through the financial statements submitted to Bureau of Internal Revenue. With such procedures followed, the right of the registered trademark owner to the grant of preliminary injunction would not be negated. It is considered as an extraordinary remedy because it is needed by those who suffered irreparable injury and having no plain, adequate and speedy remedy to prevent and stop the infringer from using a trademark which the public has associated to the former. Withal, the grant of preliminary injunction, being an ancillary or temporary remedy, is a question of fact whereby the aggrieved party must be entitled to upon proving the requisites provided by the law.

Abstract Format

html

Language

English

Format

Electronic

Accession Number

CDTG004507

Shelf Location

Archives, The Learning Commons, 12F Henry Sy Sr. Hall

Physical Description

87 leaves, 28 cm.

Keywords

Trademark infringement—Philippines; Injunctions—Philippines

Upload Full Text

wf_yes

Embargo Period

4-20-2022

Download

Share

COinS