|
PRESENT
law grants to a foreign corporation, whether licensed to
do business in the country, the right to seek redress
for unfair competition before Philippine courts. But the
said law is not without qualifications. Its literal
tenor indicates as a condition sine qua non the
registration of the trademark of the suing foreign
corporation with the Intellectual Property
Office-Philippines, or at least, that it be an assignee
of such registered trademark (Republic Act 8293, or the
Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines). The said
law further requires that the country, of which the
plaintiff foreign corporation or juridical person is a
citizen or a domiciliary, grants to Filipino
corporations or juridical entities the same reciprocal
treatment, either through treaty, convention or law. It
is essentially a compact between the various
member-countries—to accord in their own countries to
citizens of the other contracting parties—the protective
rights comparable to those accorded their own citizens
by their domestic law.
The
underlying principle is that foreign companies should be
given the same treatment in each of the member-countries
as that country makes available to its own citizens. In
addition, this sought to create uniformity in certain
respects by obligating each member-nation to assure to
nationals of countries, an effective protection against
unfair competition (Vanity Fair Mills Inc. versus T.
Eaton Co.,234 F. 2d 633).
There
are also legal remedies available to foreign nationals
against invasion of their corporate rights. Under
existing jurisprudence, a foreign registrant-company,
which is entitled to the exclusive use of registered
mark or trade name, may recover damages and seek
injunction in a civil action for infringement against
any person who infringes its rights (Section 155 and
156, Republic Act 8293). In determining the question of
infringement, the amount of matter copied from the
copyrighted work is an important consideration. To
constitute infringement, it is not necessary that the
whole or even a large portion of the work shall have
been copied (Pacita I. Habana, et. al., versus Felicidad
C. Robles, et al., respondents, G.R131522, July 19,
1999). In addition, a person who has identified in the
mind of the public the goods he manufactures or deals
in, his business or services from those of
others—whether or not a registered mark is employed—has
a property right in the goodwill of the said goods,
business or services so identified, which will be
protected in the same manner as other property rights
(Section 168, ibid).
Under
the law, any person who believes that he would be
damaged by the registration of a mark may file an
opposition and cancellation to the application and
registration (Sec. 134, ibid). The foreign registrant
can also petition for seizure of prohibited goods
(Section 169.2, ibid).
It has
been held that actions by a foreign corporation are
governed by rules different from those filed against
them. When a foreign corporation is sued, it may
interpose a counterclaim which would defeat the
complaint. If it is the one suing on an isolated
contract or it is exempt from the license requirement, a
local defendant can file a counterclaim against it, in
which case the foreign corporation is a defendant in
said counterclaim, in either of these, the foreign
corporation is not maintaining a suit (Agpalo, comments
on the Corporation Code of the Philippines, p. 479). |