The entertainment industry thrives on creativity and innovation, yet it's also an arena for intellectual property (IP) issues. In the Philippines, the Intellectual Property Code (IP Code)1 governs the legal aspect over original works, such as music, films, and digital content. Recently, famous cases have highlighted the challenges in protecting these creative assets, underscoring the need for trademark protections in the industry.
This article will guide you in navigating the significant cases on trademark in the Philippines which shape the entertainment industry.
Why Navigate Trademark Cases in the Entertainment Industry?
Analyzing trademark cases in the entertainment industry gives you a perspective on how courts interpret and enforce intellectual property laws. Additionally, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) emphasized the need to protect brands especially on the digital platform like Tiktok to boost IP enforcement actions in the entertainment field.
Accordingly, navigating entertainment trademark cases gives you an insight into how trademark laws can protect not just a brand, but also the economic value tied to it.
3 Famous Trademark Cases in the Philippine Entertainment Industry
The following are some of the famous trademark cases in the Philippine entertainment industry that have shaped what we understand about trademarks:
1. TVJ v. Tape Inc.
The “Eat Bulaga” brand is well-known to Filipinos for many decades, making this case a famous one to date.
Television and Production Exponents Inc. (TAPE) has requested that the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) reject trademark applications by Tito and Vic Sotto, along with Joey de Leon (collectively known as TVJ), for the name “Eat Bulaga.” TAPE, which produces the long-running noontime show, had previously registered the “Eat Bulaga” trademark, but its registration expired. It has since filed for renewal to maintain its rights to the name.
In a recent development, the Marikina Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Tito Sotto, Vic Sotto, and Joey de Leon (TVJ) in the dispute over the trademark ownership of the "Eat Bulaga" name, awarding them rights over TAPE. In relation to copyright, the trial court judge recognized that the hosts presented sufficient evidence to show that they formulated and created “Eat Bulaga”, and that De Leon is the creator of such brand. Additional updates on this case are anticipated as proceedings continue.
2. ABS-CBN Publishing v. Director of the Bureau of Trademarks2
Here, the application by ABS-CBN Publishing for the trademark “METRO” under the classification of “magazines” is identical to and confusingly similar to the other cited marks already registered.
In this case, the Court highlighted that absolute certainty of confusion or even actual confusion is not required to refuse registration. Indeed, the mere likelihood of confusion provides the impetus to accord protection to trademarks already registered with the IPO.
3. ABS-CBN Corporation v. Apple, Inc.3
In this case, ABS-CBN claimed that Apple’s mark is confusingly similar to its registered marks in violation of the IP Code. The Intellectual Property Office, through the Office of the Director General, emphasized that in trademark cases, particularly when there is an issue of confusion, each case is decided on its own merits as the likelihood of confusion of goods or business is a relative concept. The appeal was dismissed as there is no confusing similarity between the competing marks as there was no evidence that the purchasing public was confused by the mere co-existence of the marks.
Conclusion
The entertainment industry will continue to face intellectual property challenges, despite its seemingly recent case law foundation. These cases, however, carry weight in the importance of originality and innovation. As the industry evolves, staying informed about IP rights and responsibilities remains crucial for all creators and business owners.
Want to know more about trademark law to protect your brand? Book a consultation with a trademark attorney today. You may also email us at admin@pinollaw.com.
1 An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code and Establishing the Intellectual Property Office, Providing for its Powers and Functions, and for other Purposes, Republic Act No. 8293, §1 (January 1, 1998) [hereinafter Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines]
2 ABS-CBN Publishing v. Director of the Bureau of Trademarks, G.R. No. 217916, June 20, 2018.
3 ABS-CBN Corporation v. Apple, Inc. Appeal No. 14-2022-0044, Office of the Director General, Intellectual Property Office, January 17, 2024.
