Hechanova Group continues to contribute to the advancement of legal scholarship through its written works on innovations within the intellectual property profession.
This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of Life Sciences laws and regulations applicable in Philippines.
Admittedly, Republic Act No. 8293, the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, is notably silent on the specific issue of traditional knowledge.
Editha R Hechanova and Timothy J David of Hechanova Group outline the guidelines from the Philippine Supreme Court, which expand virtual hearings nationwide while introducing procedural safeguards, public access rules, and overseas participation provisions
In the prosecution of trademark applications, and in intellectual property violation cases, visual dissimilarities are often used as basis to counteract any objection or allegation of confusing similarity.
The debate over the recognition of geographical indications (GIs) is not over and remains as hot as ever due to conflicting economic interests, lack of uniformity in legal systems, and conflict with known and established principles applied to intellectual property rights.
Editha R Hechanova of Hechanova Group summarises the common issues and rewards of mediating intellectual property and other disputes in the Philippines based on her extensive experience
Trademark owners usually ask for risk assessment on registrability and infringement of their proposed marks before filing with the IP office…
Trademark disclaimers are among the most practical but often misunderstood tools in Philippine trademark prosecution…
Editha R. Hechanova, Brenda P. Rivera, and John Raphael Riel of HECHANOVA Group examine the current state of plant variety protection under the Philippine Plant Variety Protection Act of 2002…
After achieving a certain level of stability and growth, micro, small, and medium enterprises tend to begin paying attention to their intellectual assets. Editha R. Hechanova and John Raphael Riel provide case studies of how three successful MSMEs in the Philippines have protected their IP.
Editha R Hechanova and Maricris V Faderugao of Hechanova Group examine how misleading claims – from vaping and counterfeit goods to greenwashing and deceptive promotions – challenge consumer trust and highlight the need for stronger protection
Editha R Hechanova, Brenda P Rivera, and Maricris V Faderugao of Hechanova Group examine new trademark and patent representative rules aimed at professionalising intellectual property services and aligning with global standards.
Trademark practitioners always find it challenging when the examiner issues an office action objecting to the application for being descriptive…
As far back as 1980, then Philippines Minister of Trade Luis Villafuerte issued a memorandum of a list of internationally well-known marks in the Philippines, to protect these famous brands and serve as a guide to the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL), then known as the BPTTT, to reject applications for these brands by unauthorized entities.
In March 2025, the Office of the Director General (ODG) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) issued decisions in two unrelated trademark disputes: Dolce International Holdings, Inc. v. Director of the Bureau of Trademarks (Appeal No. 04-2004-0008) and Kraftool Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Stayer Iberica Corporation (14-2004-0006).
Editha R Hechanova of Hechanova Group summarises the provision in the Unified Legal Aid Service Rules recently issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines and places the initiative in a global context
Some of us get bored using the default ringtones in our mobile phones, so we buy something that would be more exciting, from the meowing of a Siamese cat to a line from a favorite song, to express our personality or to easily identify people who are calling.
The Philippines is signatory to the following IP treaties: Madrid Protocol, World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Copyright Treaty, WIPO Performance and Phonograms, Patent Co-operation Treaty, Rome Convention, Budapest Treaty, WIPO Establishment Convention, Paris Convention, and Trade Related Aspects of IP Rights (TRIPS Agreement).
On November 26, 2024, the Office of the Director General (ODG) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) in the appealed case entitled Suyen Corporation v. Otsumo Co., Ltd. (Appeal No. 14-2023-0009)…
The IP Code of the Philippines does not expressly specify bad faith as a ground for rejecting trademark applications or a finding of infringement or unfair competition.
The law on trademarks of the Philippines (Part III of Republic Act No. 8293 – IP Code) defines a trademark as any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods.
While MSMEs account for the vast majority of businesses in the Philippines, it remains a challenge for them to use their IP as collateral. While legislation is in place to encourage their use, in practice, says Editha R. Hechanova, implementation of the law remains largely unrealized.
In the case of Lacoste S.A. v. Crocodile International Pte Ltd., G.R. No. 223270 decided by the Philippine Supreme Court on November 6, 2023, but uploaded to its website only on September 10, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no confusing similarity between the two trademarks…
No, according to the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) in the case of ABS-CBN Corporation v. Apple Inc. in Appeal No. 14-2022-0044, IPC No. 14-2020-00186, issued on January 17, 2024.
As the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines invites public comments on a proposal to streamline the adjudication of intellectual property violation cases
In the case of Phillips Seafood Philippines Corporation v. Tuna Processors Inc. promulgated by the Philippines Supreme Court on February 6, 2023, but uploaded to its website only on March 7, 2024 (G.R. No. 214148)
Editha R Hechanova of Hechanova Group explains the main points to note for parties entering mediation to resolve an intellectual property dispute in the Philippines.
A quick look at the essentials of patent prosecution in Philippines, including key disclosure requirements for patent applications, expedited procedures, oppositions, timeframes and costs.
To guide both trademark practitioners and applicants in determining the registrability risk that they may face in the prosecution of their applications, the following cases may provide some enlightenment as to the nature of the cases appealed by the applicant to the Office of the Director General (ODG).
Editha Hechanova of Hechanova Group reports on the decision on a petition brought by the former stars of the long-running Philippine show ‘Eat Bulaga!’ concerning ownership of the associated mark.
For the second time, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has urged the Philippines Congress and the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) to amend RA 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IP Code)
A register of recognised trademark representatives is among the potential changes summarised by Editha Hechanova of Hechanova Group under a proposal that is designed to bring greater clarity to trademark prosecution.
Panoramic guide (formerly Getting the Deal Through) enabling side-by-side comparison of local insights into patent litigation and patent office procedures
A forged deed of assignment, even if registered with the relevant government office, does not confer rights to the assignee due to lack of consent of the copyright owner
The Philippine economy has shifted up a gear as a growing middle class flexes its online buying power. Laws are being rolled out to protect this resource.
To enforce its rights against an infringer, a patent owner, or anyone possessing any right, title or interest to the patented invention, may file an administrative action with the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) or a civil action with a regional trial court (RTC).
The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines recently amended the 2017 Rules and Regulations on trademarks, taking effect on February 1 2023.
The dispute on the FARLIN trademarks has been a long-running saga for the last 30 years between Farling Industrial Co., a Taiwanese corporation, and Cymar International, a Philippine company.
To both questions, the Supreme Court of the Philippines said yes in its decision in the case of Suyen Corporation v. Danjac LLC (G.R. No. 250800, July 6, 2021, published April 20, 2022).
There is no disputing the advantages of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system which, as of April 2022, has 156 member countries.
Salustiana D. Ty Tower 104 Paseo de Roxas Ave., Makati, 1229 Metro Manila Philippines
[email protected]
+63 2 8888-4293 ; +63 2 8893-4878
+63 2 8893-5553 ; +63 2 8812-6561
