QuestionsQuestions (Republic Act No. 172)
RA No. 172 amended Articles 188 and 189 of Act No. 3815 (the Revised Penal Code). Article 188 was amended to define and penalize substituting/altering trade-marks, trade-names, or service marks. Article 189 was amended to penalize unfair competition, fraudulent registration, fraudulent designation of origin, and false description.
The offense includes: (1) substituting or altering another manufacturer/dealer’s trade name/mark or a colorable imitation on goods and selling them; (2) selling or offering such goods for sale knowing the mark was fraudulently used; (3) using/substituting another’s service mark (or colorable imitation) in sale/advertising of services; and (4) reproducing/printing/lithographing such marks (or colorable imitations) for another to enable fraudulent use.
The penalty is prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 500 to 2,000 pesos, or both.
Act (1) penalizes substituting/altering and selling the goods using another’s mark (or colorable imitation) without expressly requiring knowledge of fraudulent use. Act (2) specifically penalizes selling/offering for sale when the seller knows the trade-name/mark has been fraudulently used on the goods.
It is a word or words, name, title, symbol, emblem, sign, or device (or combination thereof) used in advertising, signs, labels, posters, or otherwise, to enable the public to distinguish the business of the owner/user.
It is a mark used in the sale or advertising of services to identify the services of one person and distinguish them from those of others; it includes marks, names, symbols, titles, designations, slogans, character names, and distinctive features of radio or other advertising.
It covers both. Acts (1) and (2) relate to goods (substituting/using trade-names/marks on articles of commerce). Act (3) covers services by penalizing the use/substitution of another’s service mark (or colorable imitation) in sale/advertising of services.
“Colorable imitation” extends liability to marks that are not identical but are sufficiently similar to be made to appear as the other party’s mark, enabling fraudulent substitution or service-mark misuse.
Unfair competition under Article 189 requires both (a) an act that gives the goods the general appearance of another’s goods (or creates an opportunity for another to do so), and (b) a purpose of deceiving or defrauding another’s legitimate trade or the public generally.
It includes giving goods: (1) the general appearance of another’s goods as to the goods themselves; (2) as to wrapping of packages; (3) as to devices or words thereon; or (4) as to any other feature of appearance likely to induce the public to believe the goods are from another manufacturer/dealer.
Yes. Article 189 explicitly includes situations where the accused gives other persons a chance or opportunity to do the unfair competition act, provided the purpose is to deceive or defraud.
Affixing/applying/annexing/using in connection with goods or services (or their containers) a false designation of origin, or false description/representation, and then selling those goods or services.
It penalizes obtaining from the patent office or any other future office established by law for registration the registration of a trade-name/trade-mark/service mark, or registration of oneself as owner, by false or fraudulent representations or declarations (oral or written) or other fraudulent means.
For unfair competition, the act must be done “for the purpose of deceiving or defrauding.” For false designation/false description, the provision focuses on using the false designation/description and selling; fraudulent means are clear in fraudulent registration via false representations/declarations or other fraudulent means.
It incorporates the penalty set in Article 188 (as amended by RA 172) for the acts described in Article 189. Thus, those offenses are punished with prision correccional in its minimum period or the fine from 500 to 2,000 pesos, or both.
It took effect upon its approval (approved on June 20, 1947).
Because it criminalizes specific branding-related schemes (substitution/alteration, service-mark misuse, false origin/description, and fraudulent registration) under the Revised Penal Code, providing elements and penalties distinct from purely civil trademark disputes.