ASG Law

Tag: Brand Protection

  • Dominance Prevails: Understanding Trademark Confusing Similarity in the Philippines

    Dominance Prevails: Why the Dominancy Test is Key in Philippine Trademark Disputes

    n

    TLDR: In Philippine trademark law, similarity isn’t just about overall appearance; it’s about the dominant features. The Supreme Court in McDonald’s vs. MacJoy clarified that the ‘dominancy test,’ focusing on the most striking parts of a mark, is crucial for determining if trademarks are confusingly similar, offering vital lessons for brand protection.

    nn

    G.R. No. 166115, February 02, 2007

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine a local fast-food business in Cebu, proudly serving its community for years under the name

  • Trademark Territoriality and Bad Faith Registration in the Philippines

    Trademark Territoriality: Protecting Your Brand in the Philippines

    n

    This case underscores the importance of establishing trademark rights within the Philippines to protect your brand. The principle of territoriality dictates that trademark rights are generally limited to the countries where the mark is registered and used. However, registration obtained in bad faith and without prior use can be deemed invalid, even if it precedes another’s registration.

    nn

    G.R. NO. 159938, January 22, 2007

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine investing significant resources in building a brand, only to find someone else using a similar mark in a different country. This scenario highlights the complex interplay of trademark laws across different jurisdictions. This case explores the principle of trademark territoriality within the Philippine context, examining how prior use, bad faith, and international recognition factor into determining trademark rights. The dispute between Shangri-La and Developers Group of Companies, Inc. (DGCI) provides valuable insights into securing and defending your brand in the Philippines.

    nn

    The core issue revolves around whether DGCI validly registered the “Shangri-La” mark and “S” logo in the Philippines, given the prior international recognition and use of the mark by the Shangri-La group. The Supreme Court ultimately addressed the validity of DGCI’s registration, considering the principles of territoriality, prior use, and good faith.

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT

    n

    Trademark law in the Philippines is primarily governed by Republic Act No. 8293, also known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. However, the original complaint was filed when Republic Act No. 166, an earlier trademark law, was in effect. A crucial aspect of trademark law is the principle of territoriality, which dictates that trademark rights are generally confined to the geographical boundaries of the country where the mark is registered and used.

    nn

    Section 2 of RA 166 stated who is entitled to register a trademark:

    nn

    “Any person, corporation, partnership or association domiciled in the Philippines or doing business here, or the country of which he or it is a citizen or in which he or it is domiciled grants to citizens and residents of the Philippines the same rights as it grants to its own citizens, who lawfully produces or deals in merchandise of any kind or who engages in any lawful business, or his successors, legal representatives or assigns, may obtain registration of his trade-mark, trade-name, or service mark by complying with the requirements of this Act.”

  • Burger Battle: Protecting Trademarks and Preventing Unfair Competition in the Philippines

    In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of the Philippines sided with McDonald’s, reinforcing the protection afforded to registered trademarks against infringement and unfair competition. The Court found L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. liable for using a confusingly similar mark, “Big Mak,” on their hamburger products. This ruling underscores the importance of safeguarding brand identity and preventing businesses from unfairly capitalizing on the goodwill established by others.

    The “Big Mak” Attack: Did a Local Burger Joint Steal McDonald’s Sizzle?

    This case revolves around the clash between McDonald’s Corporation, the global fast-food giant, and L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., a local burger chain in the Philippines. McDonald’s, owner of the registered trademark “Big Mac” for its signature hamburger, accused L.C. Big Mak Burger of trademark infringement and unfair competition for using the name “Big Mak” for its own hamburger sandwiches. The central legal question was whether “Big Mak” constituted a colorable imitation of “Big Mac,” thus creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

    The trial court initially ruled in favor of McDonald’s, finding L.C. Big Mak Burger liable for both trademark infringement and unfair competition. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, prompting McDonald’s to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in turn, reversed the Court of Appeals’ ruling, siding with McDonald’s. The Court emphasized that the use of a mark or its colorable imitation, which is likely to cause confusion, is the heart of trademark infringement. In determining this, the Supreme Court applied the dominancy test.

    The Court stated that there are two types of confusion, particularly, confusion of goods (product confusion) and confusion of business (source or origin confusion). Building on this principle, it cited the test of dominancy to determine the likelihood of confusion. Under this, courts give greater weight to the similarity of the appearance of the product arising from the adoption of the dominant features of the registered mark, disregarding minor differences. In its analysis, the Court focused on the aural and visual similarities between “Big Mac” and “Big Mak,” noting the near-identical pronunciation and spelling.

    Crucially, the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of protecting a trademark owner’s potential for business expansion. Even if L.C. Big Mak Burger targeted a different market segment, the Court reasoned, McDonald’s had the right to extend its brand reach without facing unfair competition.

    “Modern law recognizes that the protection to which the owner of a trademark is entitled is not limited to guarding his goods or business from actual market competition with identical or similar products of the parties, but extends to all cases in which the use by a junior appropriator of a trade-mark or trade-name is likely to lead to a confusion of source…”

    Addressing the issue of unfair competition, the Supreme Court examined whether L.C. Big Mak Burger intentionally misled consumers into believing their hamburgers were associated with McDonald’s. The Court noted the similarities in the product and the lack of clear differentiation in branding, particularly during the initial stages of the dispute. These factors indicated a deliberate attempt to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of McDonald’s brand.

    Under Section 29 (“Section 29”) of RA 166 defines unfair competition, thus:

    (a) Any person, who in selling his goods shall give them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in any feature of their appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer, other than the actual manufacturer or dealer, or who otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate trade, or any subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling such goods with a like purpose;

    Based on the ruling, proving actual confusion isn’t required, likelihood is sufficient. Section 22 requires the less stringent standard of “likelihood of confusion” only. In cases of trademark infringement and unfair competition, the successful plaintiff is entitled to injunctive and monetary reliefs to avoid future business downfalls.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc.’s use of the “Big Mak” mark infringed on McDonald’s registered trademark “Big Mac” and constituted unfair competition.
    What is trademark infringement? Trademark infringement occurs when someone uses a registered trademark or a similar mark without permission, causing confusion among consumers about the source or origin of the goods or services.
    What is unfair competition? Unfair competition involves deceptive or bad-faith practices that aim to pass off one’s goods, business, or services as those of another, thereby undermining the goodwill established by the latter.
    What is the “dominancy test”? The “dominancy test” focuses on the similarity of the dominant features of competing trademarks to determine the likelihood of consumer confusion, disregarding minor differences.
    Did McDonald’s have to prove actual consumer confusion? No, the Supreme Court clarified that proving a “likelihood of confusion” is sufficient for trademark infringement, and proof of actual confusion is not required.
    What was the Court’s reasoning on unfair competition? The Court inferred intent to deceive from the similarity of the marks, respondents chose to apply the “Big Mak” mark on hamburgers and the lack of clear notice to the public that “Big Mak” hamburgers were not products of McDonald’s.
    What remedies are available for trademark infringement and unfair competition? Victims of trademark infringement and unfair competition can seek injunctive relief (a court order to stop the infringing activity) and monetary damages (compensation for losses suffered).
    What is the significance of this ruling? This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to registered trademarks, signaling that businesses cannot unfairly capitalize on established brand names, especially where it may cause consumer confusion.

    The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a stern warning against trademark infringement and unfair competition in the Philippines. It underscores the importance of protecting brand identity and ensuring fair business practices. This ruling provides valuable guidance for businesses seeking to protect their trademarks and for consumers who rely on trademarks to make informed purchasing decisions.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: McDonald’s Corporation vs L.C. Big Mak Burger, G.R No. 143993, August 18, 2004

  • Trademark Infringement: How ‘Dominancy Test’ Protects Brand Recognition

    In a trademark dispute between Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. and CFC Corporation, the Supreme Court sided with Nestle, reinforcing the principle that trademark protection extends to the dominant features of a brand, not just a holistic comparison of labels. The court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, effectively blocking CFC Corporation from registering the trademark ‘FLAVOR MASTER’ for instant coffee due to its confusing similarity with Nestle’s established trademarks, ‘MASTER ROAST’ and ‘MASTER BLEND’. This ruling underscores the importance of the ‘dominancy test’ in trademark law, prioritizing the protection of core brand elements that consumers readily associate with a particular product, thus preventing potential market confusion and safeguarding brand reputation.

    Coffee Clash: Does ‘Flavor Master’ Brew Confusion with ‘Master Roast’ and ‘Master Blend’?

    The legal battle began when CFC Corporation sought to register ‘FLAVOR MASTER’ for its instant coffee, a move opposed by Nestle, which argued the mark was too similar to its own established ‘MASTER ROAST’ and ‘MASTER BLEND’ brands. The Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) initially sided with Nestle, denying CFC’s application. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed this decision, applying a ‘holistic test’ and finding sufficient differences in the overall appearance of the labels to prevent consumer confusion. Nestle then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the appellate court’s application of the law.

    At the heart of the dispute lies Section 4(d) of Republic Act No. 166, the Trademark Law, which protects registered trademarks from similar marks that could cause confusion or deceive purchasers. The critical question before the Supreme Court was whether ‘FLAVOR MASTER’ was indeed a ‘colorable imitation’ of Nestle’s trademarks. To determine this, Philippine jurisprudence recognizes two tests: the Dominancy Test, which focuses on the similarity of dominant features, and the Holistic Test, which considers the entirety of the marks. The Court of Appeals favored the Holistic Test, emphasizing the visual differences in the labels. Nestle argued for the application of the Dominancy Test, asserting that the word ‘MASTER’ was the key element causing potential confusion.

    The Supreme Court agreed with Nestle, asserting that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the totality rule. The Supreme Court emphasized that each trademark case is unique and should be judged on its specific merits. It noted that precedents should only be applied if they are directly relevant to the case at hand. According to the Court, the products bearing the trademarks in question are inexpensive and common household items, which undiscerningly purchasers buy off the shelf. This is important, because the ordinary purchaser would not have the time nor the inclination to make a keen and perceptive examination of the physical discrepancies in the trademarks of the products in order to exercise his choice.

    The Court highlighted the flaws in the Court of Appeals’ reasoning. It stated that using the holistic test is improper, since the ordinary purchaser would not be inclined to notice the specific features, similarities or dissimilarities, considering that the product is an inexpensive and common household item. Furthermore, the totality or holistic test only relies on visual comparison between two trademarks whereas the dominancy test relies not only on the visual but also on the aural and connotative comparisons and overall impressions between the two trademarks.

    The Supreme Court articulated its preference for the Dominancy Test in this scenario, pointing to the fact that ordinary purchasers of common household items like coffee are often ‘undiscerningly rash’ and less likely to scrutinize every detail. This is consistent with the BPTTT application of the dominancy test, which provides that the word MASTER is the dominant feature of opposer’s mark. The Court also took into account the advertisements made in promoting the product. For example, Robert Jaworski, one of the personalities engaged to promote the product is given the title of Master of the Game. As a result, the buying public had come to learn to associate the word MASTER with the opposer’s goods.

    The Supreme Court also addressed the nature of the word ‘MASTER’ itself, clarifying that it is neither a generic nor a descriptive term in relation to coffee. Generic terms, which simply name a product category, and descriptive terms, which directly describe a product’s characteristics, are generally not protectable as trademarks. Instead, the court classified ‘MASTER’ as a suggestive term, one that requires imagination and perception to connect it to the product. Nestle’s advertising campaigns, associating its coffee with ‘masters’ of their crafts, further solidified this suggestive meaning, making the term eligible for trademark protection.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that CFC’s use of ‘MASTER’ in ‘FLAVOR MASTER’ was likely to cause confusion among consumers, thereby infringing on Nestle’s established trademarks. Quoting the case of American Chicle Co. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., the court emphasized the potential for unfair advantage when a newcomer adopts a mark similar to one already well-known in the market. This decision reinforces the importance of protecting established brands from potential market confusion, ensuring that consumers can confidently associate trademarks with specific products and their origins.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether CFC Corporation’s trademark ‘FLAVOR MASTER’ for instant coffee was confusingly similar to Nestle’s trademarks ‘MASTER ROAST’ and ‘MASTER BLEND’, thereby constituting trademark infringement.
    What is the ‘dominancy test’ in trademark law? The ‘dominancy test’ focuses on the similarity of the dominant features of competing trademarks, assessing whether these similarities are likely to cause confusion or deception among consumers. It prioritizes the most recognizable elements of a brand in determining potential infringement.
    What is the ‘holistic test’ in trademark law? The ‘holistic test’ requires considering the entirety of the marks in question, examining their overall appearance and presentation, to determine if there is a confusing similarity. This test focuses on the cumulative effect of the marks’ features rather than specific elements.
    Why did the Supreme Court favor the ‘dominancy test’ in this case? The Supreme Court favored the ‘dominancy test’ because the products involved were inexpensive and common household items, purchased by consumers who are less likely to scrutinize details. The court reasoned that the dominant feature, ‘MASTER,’ would likely cause confusion.
    Is the term ‘MASTER’ considered generic or descriptive for coffee? No, the Supreme Court clarified that ‘MASTER’ is a suggestive term, not generic or descriptive, as it requires imagination to connect it to the product. This classification allowed it to be protected under trademark law, especially given Nestle’s advertising efforts.
    What was the significance of Nestle’s advertising in this case? Nestle’s advertising, which associated its coffee products with ‘masters’ in various fields, reinforced the suggestive meaning of the term ‘MASTER’ and strengthened its trademark protection. This association contributed to consumer recognition and brand identity.
    What is a ‘colorable imitation’ in trademark law? ‘Colorable imitation’ refers to a close or ingenious imitation that is calculated to deceive ordinary persons or bears such a resemblance to the original as to deceive an ordinary purchaser, causing them to purchase one product believing it to be the other.
    What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the BPTTT’s decision, denying CFC Corporation’s application to register the trademark ‘FLAVOR MASTER’. This ruling effectively blocked CFC from using the mark due to its similarity to Nestle’s existing trademarks.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case provides clarity on the application of trademark law, particularly emphasizing the importance of protecting dominant brand features. It serves as a reminder to businesses to conduct thorough trademark searches and avoid adopting marks that could potentially infringe on existing brands, thereby preventing costly legal battles and protecting brand equity.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112012, April 04, 2001

  • Trademark Dilution or Fair Use? Understanding Trademark Rights in the Philippines for Dissimilar Goods

    Trademark Protection in the Philippines: When Can Another Company Use Your Brand Name?

    TLDR: This landmark case clarifies that trademark rights in the Philippines are not absolute and are generally limited to the specific goods or services for which the trademark is registered. Using the same trademark for completely unrelated products, like sandals versus chemical products, is typically permissible and does not infringe on the original trademark owner’s rights, absent evidence of bad faith or likely consumer confusion regarding the source of the goods.

    G.R. No. 120900, July 20, 2000: CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND NSR RUBBER CORPORATION

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine building a globally recognized brand, only to find another company using the same name for a completely different product. Could they do that? This scenario highlights the complexities of trademark law and the delicate balance between protecting brand owners and fostering fair competition. In the Philippines, the case of Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs. Court of Appeals and NSR Rubber Corporation grappled with this very issue, specifically addressing whether a company owning the ‘CANON’ trademark for chemical products could prevent another from registering ‘CANON’ for sandals. The Supreme Court’s decision provides crucial insights into the scope of trademark protection, particularly when dealing with dissimilar goods.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: Philippine Trademark Law and the Principle of товарная близость (Proximity of Goods)

    Philippine trademark law, primarily governed by Republic Act No. 166 (the Trademark Law, applicable at the time of this case) and now Republic Act No. 8293 (the Intellectual Property Code), aims to protect consumers from confusion and safeguard the goodwill associated with trademarks. A trademark is defined as “any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise.” Registration of a trademark grants the owner the exclusive right to use it in connection with the specified goods or services.

    However, this right is not limitless. A cornerstone principle in trademark law is the concept of ‘related goods’ or ‘proximity of goods’ – товарная близость. This principle dictates that trademark infringement is more likely to be found when the goods or services of the trademark owner and the alleged infringer are similar or related, creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Conversely, when goods are distinctly different, the use of the same or similar trademarks may be permissible.

    The Supreme Court in Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (1982) emphasized this point, stating that “when a trademark is used by a party for a product in which the other party does not deal, the use of the same trademark on the latter’s product cannot be validly objected to.” This underscores that trademark protection is generally product-specific.

    Crucially, Section 4(q) of RA 166 (now Section 123.1(d) of RA 8293) prohibits the registration of a mark if it “so resembles a registered mark owned by a different proprietor or marks or trade names previously used in the Philippines by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when applied to or used in connection with the goods, business or services of the applicant, to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers.” The operative phrase here is “when applied to or used in connection with the goods, business or services of the applicant,” highlighting the importance of the goods’ nature in the likelihood of confusion analysis.

    The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, to which both the Philippines and Japan are signatories, also plays a role. Article 8 of the Paris Convention protects trade names “without the obligation of filing or registration, whether or not it forms part of a trademark.” However, the extent of this protection, especially concerning dissimilar goods and well-known marks, remained a point of contention, as seen in this Canon case.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: Canon vs. NSR Rubber – Sandals vs. Chemical Products

    The story began in 1985 when NSR Rubber Corporation applied to register the trademark “CANON” for sandals. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, the Japanese multinational known for cameras and other imaging products but registered in the Philippines for chemical products (Class 2), filed an opposition. Canon argued that registering “CANON” for sandals would damage its brand, prevent its potential expansion into footwear, and cause confusion among consumers.

    Here’s a breakdown of the case’s procedural journey:

    1. Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfer (BPTTT): NSR Rubber was declared in default for failing to answer Canon’s opposition. Canon presented evidence, including its trademark registrations for “CANON” in Class 2 (chemical products). The BPTTT dismissed Canon’s opposition, ruling that chemical products and sandals are dissimilar goods and thus, no confusion was likely.
    2. Court of Appeals (CA): Canon appealed to the CA, which affirmed the BPTTT’s decision. The CA echoed the dissimilarity argument and noted Canon had not demonstrated any intention to venture into sandal production.
    3. Supreme Court (SC): Canon elevated the case to the Supreme Court, reiterating its arguments about exclusive trademark rights, potential business expansion, and protection under the Paris Convention.

    The Supreme Court sided with the lower courts and NSR Rubber. Justice Gonzaga-Reyes, writing for the Third Division, emphasized the dissimilarity of goods. The Court highlighted that Canon’s Philippine trademark registration was specifically for Class 2 goods – “paints, chemical products, toner, and dyestuff.” Sandals, on the other hand, fall under Class 25. The Court stated:

    “Clearly, there is a world of difference between the paints, chemical products, toner, and dyestuff of petitioner and the sandals of private respondent.”

    The Court rejected Canon’s argument about ‘normal business expansion,’ pointing out Canon’s lack of evidence showing intent to produce footwear. Citing Faberge, Incorporated vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (1992), the SC reinforced that trademark rights are limited to the goods specified in the registration certificate. The Court also dismissed concerns about consumer confusion, noting the distinct trade channels for chemical products and sandals – chemical stores versus grocery and department stores. Regarding the Paris Convention, the Court clarified that Article 8 does not grant automatic worldwide trademark protection regardless of goods. Referencing Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (1991), the SC held that the Paris Convention does not automatically prevent other signatory countries from using a trade name used in another country, especially for dissimilar goods.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied Canon’s petition, allowing NSR Rubber to register “CANON” for sandals.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Lessons for Brand Owners and Businesses

    This case provides several key takeaways for businesses operating in the Philippines and internationally regarding trademark protection:

    • Trademark Registration is Product-Specific: Trademark rights in the Philippines are generally confined to the specific class of goods or services listed in the registration certificate. Registering a trademark in one class does not automatically prevent others from using the same mark for completely unrelated goods in a different class.
    • Dissimilar Goods Minimize Confusion: When goods are distinctly different and sold through different channels, the likelihood of consumer confusion regarding the source is significantly reduced. This weakens the basis for trademark infringement claims.
    • Expansion Plans Need Evidence: While trademark owners can argue for protection based on potential business expansion, mere assertions are insufficient. Concrete evidence of actual plans to expand into related product categories strengthens such arguments.
    • Paris Convention – Not a Blanket Protection: The Paris Convention offers trade name protection, but it’s not an automatic, worldwide shield against any use of a similar name. The principle of товарная близость still applies.
    • Importance of Comprehensive Trademark Portfolio: For businesses with diverse product lines or expansion ambitions, securing trademark registrations across relevant classes is crucial for robust brand protection.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) about Trademark Rights and Dissimilar Goods

    Q: Can I stop someone from using my trademark if they are selling different products?

    A: Generally, no, if the products are completely unrelated and there’s no likelihood of consumer confusion. However, if the products are related, or if your trademark is very famous and the use by another company dilutes its distinctiveness, you might have grounds to object, even for different products. Each case is fact-specific.

    Q: What are ‘related goods’ in trademark law?

    A: Related goods are products that, while not identical, are similar enough that consumers might assume they come from the same source. Factors considered include product function, channels of trade, and consumer perception. For example, shoes and socks are related goods; shoes and chemicals are not.

    Q: I registered my trademark in the Philippines. Is it protected worldwide?

    A: No. Trademark registration is territorial. Philippine registration protects your mark only in the Philippines. To secure international protection, you need to register your trademark in each country where you seek protection or utilize international treaties like the Madrid System.

    Q: What is ‘likelihood of confusion’?

    A: Likelihood of confusion means there’s a substantial chance that consumers will be misled into thinking that the goods or services of the alleged infringer originate from or are endorsed by the trademark owner. This is the central test in most trademark infringement cases.

    Q: My company name includes my trademark. Does that give me broader protection?

    A: While your company name (trade name) is also protected, it doesn’t automatically expand the scope of your trademark rights for dissimilar goods. Article 8 of the Paris Convention protects trade names, but the principle of товарная близость still influences the extent of that protection, especially in trademark infringement disputes.

    Q: What should I do if I think someone is infringing my trademark?

    A: Consult with a lawyer specializing in intellectual property law immediately. They can assess your case, advise you on your rights, and help you take appropriate action, which might include sending a cease and desist letter or filing a legal action.

    Q: How can I protect my brand for future product expansions?

    A: Consider filing trademark applications in multiple relevant classes of goods and services, even if you don’t currently offer products in all those classes. This proactive approach can safeguard your brand as you expand your business.

    ASG Law specializes in Intellectual Property Law and Trademark Registration in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.