Healing Hilot - Protecting Indigenous Massage Techniques

Republished from October 14, 2011.

The Dagdagay Hilot is an ancient massage technique that was developed by the indigenous cultural communities (ICCs) of Mountain Province in the Philippines. Here, the masseuse uses uniquely shaped sticks to massage the soles of the feet in order to stimulate blood circulation. This technique is often paired with the use of virgin coconut oil and other herbs. It is believed to be effective therapy for hypertension, hormonal imbalance, depression and stress.

Today, many health spas and massage establishments employ this technique as part of their services. Cropping up alongside them are schools or training facilities that offer to teach these techniques and issue certificates for successful students. Much money changes hands in this industry, yet there has been no reported benefit to the communities of Mountain Province from which these techniques were copied. This is also true for all other indigenous hilot techniques and the communities from which they originate.

Under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), ICCs have the right to exercise ownership over their health practices, among other things.[1]

The law reads: “they shall have the right to special measures to control, develop and protect their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations…”

Unfortunately, this provision presently treated as a mere declaratory statement and it will continue to be one up until the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) shall have properly defined and operationalized these 'special measures'.

A different provision of the law offers more clarity by saying that Community Intellectual Rights (CIRs) may not be taken without ‘Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)’ or ‘in violation of their laws, traditions and customs’.[2]

These rights may be used as a basis for community ownership over a health practice like massage techniques. This community property may then be the subject of a contract for the use of the technique and its name. Franchising this knowledge and brand could be a good and steady source of revenue for a community for as long as there is a properly executed contract, compliant with the dual requirements of FPIC and conformity with the community’s laws, traditions and customs.

Schools and training facilities must also be subject to the quality standards set by the community’s master practitioners. Certificates issued will no longer simply be a result of x number of hours spent in class but an authentic stamp of approval by the communities themselves of the proper application of the technique.

Trademark law can be used to support this business model by registering certification marks that may be used authenticate spas, health establishments or schools that wish to use the community’s brand. 

A “DAGDAGAY” certified establishment assures the public of the quality and authenticity of the service being offered while everybody else is prohibited from using the brand or mark. Any violator will then be liable for both trademark infringement and violation of the provisions of IPRA.

This combination of protective measures under IPRA and the Intellectual Property Code can help create a system that would give life to the ideals set by IPRA to protect the cultural integrity of our ICCs and to help them maintain control over and benefit from their knowledge, systems and practices.

Perhaps someday we can enjoy our massages with real peace of mind, knowing that our patronage is helping our indigenous peoples in a very real way.

---

[1] Sec. 34. Right to Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices and to Develop own Sciences and Technologies. - ICCs/IPs are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership and control and protection of their cultural and intellectual rights. They shall have the right to special measures to control, develop and protect their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations, including human and other genetic resources, seeds, including derivatives of these resources, traditional medicines and health practices, vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals, indigenous knowledge systems and practices, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literature, designs, and visual and performing arts.

[2] Sec. 32. Community Intellectual Rights. - ICCs/IPs have the right to practice and revitalize their own cultural traditions and customs. The State shall preserve, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures as well as the right to the restitution of cultural, intellectual, religious, and spiritual property taken without their free and prior informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs. (emphasis supplied)

Copyright and the Visual Artist

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Precious Leano, FILVADRO Executive Director

Mobile: 0917 828 8690

Email: precious.leano@gmail.com

FILVADRO UPHOLDS COPYRIGHT OF VISUAL ARTISTS

Collective Management Organization to be launched in Copyright Forum at the CCP

The Filipino Visual Arts and Design Rights Organization (FILVADRO), the country’s collective management organization (CMO) for the visual arts, will be launched in a copyright forum at the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) on 22 September, 2-5 pm.

International copyright expert Atty. KT Ang from the Confederation of International Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) will speak to visual artists about how to manage the licensing of artworks and how CMOs, with focus on models abroad, support the visual artist’s work.  Also speaking during the forum will be Atty. Mark Robert Dy of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines who will present the Copyright law including, the national system of Registration.

FILVADRO was organized by key visual artists and cultural workers after a series of consultations was conducted in 2009 by the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. Visual artists, including painters, photographers, sculptors, and graphic artists,  have stated in the consultations that there is a need for a visual arts CMO that would assert copyright for the individual. An informal survey conducted during the consultations showed that 100% of visual artists who participated in the survey have not received resale royalties. 

 “FILVADRO acts on behalf of its members to address copyright concerns, mainly the collection of resale rights for artwork sold after the first purchase, the licensing of art images for publication on all kinds of print and digital media, and the reproduction of art on items used for profit and promotion.  It will represent artists in the collection of royalties from copyright users and will be able to extend this representation to other countries where FILVADRO has  partner CMOs,” said Karen Ocampo Flores, noted visual artist and President of FILVADRO.

FILVADRO has recently signed a sister society agreement with the French La Societies Des Auteurs Dans Les Arts Graphiques Et Plastiques (ADAGP), the oldest visual arts CMO in the world. Likewise, FILVADRO is working closely with BONO, the Norwegian CMO for the visual arts.

FILVADRO was founded by noted artists Alex Baluyut, Yael Buencamino, Tina Colayco, Noel Cuizon, Egai Talusan Fernandez, Karen Ocampo Flores, Emmanuel Garibay, Jeannie Javelosa, and cultural worker Precious Leano.   Sculptor and new media artist Josephine Turalba and ceramicist Rita Badillo has recently joined the current Board of Trustees of FILVADRO.

The FILVADRO Forum and Launch is supported by the Cultural Center of the Philippines, Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines, CISAC, and the Norwegian Copyright Development Association (NORCODE).

School-branded Money

Good education is good business.

The Stylistic Mr. Lee in Taguig

Clearly, our trademark system has failed.

This shop made it to Taguig.

iSchools SAPOT develops IP sensitive Content for Students; IPO status Scored

Original article found at:
http://www.ischools.ph/project_updates/ischools-sapot-develops-ip-sensitive-content-for-students-ipo-status-scored.html


by: Kairos Dela Cruz

“Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being”.

We all know our rights, sometimes we even overshoot on assuming them. The latter even makes some of us neglect the existence of others and the rights that are intrinsic to them. In cases of violence, people know about their human rights. In cases of trials, even the accused parties have the guts to assume their rights to remain silent. In the cases wherein students duplicate or photocopy resource materials, Philippines appear to be blatant in transgressing intellectual property issues.

Should this be the case and future of Philippine education? Students stealing to become educated?

iSchools Project says NO.

iSchools Project, a government funded ICT-education integration program, seeks to educate students not just by giving them free computer  laboratories and training workshops; but also by providing them with intellectual property- sensitive educational materials.

SAPOT Participants (institutional/individual partners and project staff) pose for a group pick at Angels' Hills, Tagaytay last July 20-22, 2011.

The project seeks to provide high quality educational content to the project’s high school recipients through its Content Mapping Initiative (CMI), more popularly coined as Supplementary Academic Philippine Online Treasury (SAPOT). The initiative is part of the project’s thrust in empowering the major stakeholders (teachers, students and community members) of its recipient schools.

Representatives from iSchools partner institutions meet up with iSchools Project Manager, Toni Torres (in maroon) to insure the smooth flow of SAPOT.

As Toni Torres, iSchools Project Manager, puts it “iSchools Project believes that ICT can propel the Philippine education system but the project will not compromise any values in doing so. 

Content especially in education comes at a price that not everyone can afford. To help in solving the problem, iSchools would provide free content materials in different subjects, materials that will undergo rigorous academic scrutinizing. Permissions from the “whose” end of these content materials will be coordinated and negotiated by the project”.

In the recent outlining and primary mapping workshop for CMI, iSchools Project joined hands with major academic, cultural and legal institutions at Angels’ Hills, Tagaytay City last June 20-22, 2011. Among the many subject matter experts, Atty. Mark Dy of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO-Phils.) was given the chance to explain the need and implications of insuring that CMI would not transgress any level of the intellectual property rights of the proponents of the content materials that the initiative wishes to include in the final content map.

According to Atty. Dy, “Respect for intellectual property is a strong indicator of quality creative & educational content. Designing world-class educational material always includes proper referencing, attribution and copyright clearance for all the components used in the project. This way, credit is given to those who deserve it and the entire project is kept fresh and original”.

iSchools SAPOT will distribute the content materials to project recipient high schools tentatively through three major media- an online portal, portable external hard disk and a magazine-type catalog. All of these materials will be distributed free of any charges.

Atty. Mark Dy from the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) briefs SAPOT participants about the possible IP implications of the initiative.

During Atty. Dy’s lecture he came across with why initiatives such as SAPOT are pushing a holistic change for intellectual property in the Philippines. iSchools SAPOT is one of the first of its kind but it would not be the last of iSchools’ attempts in bridging the digital divide.

“The creative, scientific and academic communities must demand greater institutional support for copyright in the Philippines if we want our creative content to flourish. Senate Bill 2487, once passed into law, will create the Bureau of Copyright under the Intellectual Property Office, dedicated to copyright policies and programs. Presently, our Intellectual Property Office only has an ad hoc team composed of two lawyers and about 10 support personnel manning the entire copyright system of the country. In contrast, South Korea has about 800. We urge everyone to support the passing of Senate Bill 2487 and lift Filipino creativity to the very top”, Dy added.

Attributing the author with due recognition is a basic in respecting intellectual property; here is an example.

Khalil Gibran, an internationally acclaimed philosopher and author may sound too noble and too ideal when he published the opening line. In all honesty, maybe the world can use a little of this nobility and idealism.

Trademark Infringement - Jollibean

from www.jollibean.com

Yes, Singapore copies too.

I don't know the real story... whether Jollibee has ever tried to sue or whether they can even win this case.

This can certainly be an interesting debate about protecting well-known Filipino marks. 

If Jollibee can't be protected as THE well-known mark, then all others might as well be lost in overseas commerce.

Have a cup of Jollibean while you think about it...

from www.jollibean.com

Copyright and Trademark Infringement - Diner Dash Bar & Restaurant

Copyright & Trademark Infringement in One Strike

spotted along Bayani Road, Taguig City, Philippines

Trademark Infringement - Shangri-La Restaurant

Shangri-La Restaurant in Times Street, Quezon City, Philippines

From the trademark-junkie favorite Shangri-La International v. Developers Group (G.R. 159931, March 31, 2006 and January 22, 2007) case. 

_____

Read the two Shangri-La cases in the Philippine Supreme Court here:

first case:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_159938_2006.html

second case:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_159938_2007.html

Guidelines on Copyright Registration and Deposit

The Copyright Registration and Deposit System (CoRDS) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) will be operational by July 14, 2011. You may then begin registering your copyright-protected works at IPOPHL or any of our ten IP Satellite Offices.

The Guidelines have been published online today at the IPOPHL Website.

You may download a PDF copy of the Guidelines here.

Copyright is the legal protection over an original literary, scholarly, scientific or artistic work. Registration is not necessary to gain copyright-protection but your registration certificate may serve as evidence of such protection. Registration is also needed to complete the records of the National Library of the Philippines (NLP). 


To learn more about copyright and how to protect your original creations, you may email me at markrobertdy@gmail.com

Philippine Jurisprudence - The Skechers Trademark Case (2011)

Skechers, USA, Inc. v. Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp.

G.R. No. 164321 (2011)

Skechers, USA Inc. is the owner of the registered trademarks “Skechers” and “S within an oval logo”.

Skechers filed a criminal case for trademark infringement against several store-owners that were selling shoes branded as “Strong” and bearing a similar “S” logo. The Regional Trial Court (RTC)  issued search warrants, allowing the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to raid the stores and confiscate 6,000 pairs of shoes.

The accused moved to quash the warrants, saying that there was no confusing similarity between the “Skechers” and the “Strong” brands.

The RTC granted the motion to quash and ordered the NBI to return the seized goods. The court said that the two brands had glaring differences and that an ordinary prudent consumer would not mistake one for the other.

On certiorari, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC ruling.

The matter was elevated to the Supreme Court (SC).

Issue: Did the accused commit trademark infringement?

Yes, the accused is guilty of trademark infringement.

Under the IP Code (RA No. 8293), trademark infringement is committed when: 

Remedies; Infringement. — Any person who shall, without the consent of the owner of the registered mark:  

155.1. Use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark or the same container or a dominant feature thereof in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, advertising of any goods or services including other preparatory steps necessary to carry out the sale of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or  

155.2. Reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark or a dominant feature thereof and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable in a civil action for infringement by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter set forth: Provided, That the infringement takes place at the moment any of the acts stated in Subsection 155.1 or this subsection are committed regardless of whether there is actual sale of goods or services using the infringing material. (emphasis supplied)

There is trademark infringement when the second mark used is likely to cause confusion. There are two tests to determine this:

1. Dominancy Test – the court focuses on the similarity of the dominant features of the marks that might cause confusion in the mind of the consumer. Duplication or imitation is not necessary. Even accidental confusion may be cause for trademark infringement. More consideration is given to the aural and visual impressions created by the marks on the buyers and less weight is given to factors like price, quality, sales outlets and market segments.  

Applied to this case: The SC found that the use of the “S” symbol by Strong rubber shoes infringes on the registered Skechers trademark. It is the most dominant feature of the mark -- one that catches the buyer’s eye first. Even if the accused claims that there was a difference because the “S” used by Skechers is found inside an oval, the fact that the accused used the dominant “S” symbol already constitutes trademark infringement.  

The SC disagreed with the CA reasoning that the “S” symbol is already used for many things, including the Superman symbol. Even if this is true, the fact that Strong used same stylized “S” symbol as that of the Skechers brand makes this a case of trademark infringement. The same font and style was used in this case. The Superman “S” symbol is clearly different from the “S” in this case.  

2. Holistic or Totality Test – the court looks at the entirety of the marks as applied to the products, including the labels and packaging. You must not only look at the dominant features but all other features appearing on both marks.  

Applied to this case: Both RTC and CA used the Holistic Test to rule that there was no infringement. Both courts argued the following differences: 

• The mark “S” found in Strong Shoes is not enclosed in an “oval design.”

• The word “Strong” is conspicuously placed at the backside and insoles.

• The hang tags and labels attached to the shoes bears the word “Strong” for respondent and “Skechers U.S.A.” for private complainant;

• Strong shoes are modestly priced compared to the costs of Skechers Shoes.
 

Also using the Holistic Test, the SC corrected the lower courts and ruled that the striking similarities between the products outweigh the differences argued by the respondents:

• Same color scheme of blue, white and gray;

• Same wave-like pattern on the midsole and the outer sole;

• Same elongated designs at the side of the midsole near the heel;

• Same number of ridges on the outer soles (five at the back and six in front);

• Same location of the stylized “S” symbol;

• The words "Skechers Sport Trail" at the back of the Skechers shoes and "Strong Sport Trail" at the back of the Strong shoes, using the same font, color, size, direction and orientation;

• Same two grayish-white semi-transparent circles on top of the heel collars.

The features and overall design of the two products are so similar that there is a high likelihood of confusion. 

Two products do not need to be identical, they just need to be similar enough to confuse the ordinary buyer in order to constitute trademark infringement (Converse Rubber Corporation v. Jacinto Rubber & Plastic Co., 186 Phil. 85 [1980]). Also, the difference in price cannot be a defense in a case for trademark infringement (McDonald’s Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., 480 Phil. 402, 434 [2004]).

There are two types of confusion:

1. Product Confusion – where the ordinary prudent purchaser would be induced to purchase on product in the belief that he was buying another.
2. Source or Origin Confusion – although the goods are different, the use of the mark causes the consumer to assume that both products originate from the same source. 

Trademark law protects the owner not only from product confusion but also from source confusion. Protection is not limited to the same or similar products but extends to all cases where:

• The consumer is misled into thinking that the trademark owner extended his business into a new field;

• The consumer is misled into thinking that the trademark owner is in any way connected to the infringer’s activities; or 

• The infringement forestalls the normal potential expansion of the trademark owner’s business.

Trademark law does not only protect the owner’s reputation and goodwill, it also protects the consumers from fraud and confusion. 

In this case, it is clear that there was an attempt to copy the trademark owner’s mark and product design. In trademark infringement cases, you do not need to copy another's mark or product exactly. Colorable imitation is enough.

An Important Letter to Anvil Publishing

Dear Ms. Galvez & Anvil Publishing,

Greetings.

My name is Mark, a creative industries lawyer working for the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL).

Last April 15, 2011, at the World Book and Copyright Day held at the UP Technohub, I bought a book from you entitled 100 Kislap by Abdon M. Balde, Jr. Since Mr. Balde was beside me during that time, I took the opportunity to have him personally sign the copy that I bought.

While talking to Mr. Balde, I absentmindedly grabbed the wrong (unsigned) copy of the book and took it home with me.

The following day, I received a text message from your employee, Nelson or 'Nhyl' Eleda. He informed me that I left my signed copy and offered to deliver the book for swapping at the nearest National Book Store. I thanked him for his efforts and told him to leave the book at NBS Buendia cor. Makati Ave. (the one near the gas station). 

This morning, I was able to swap the wrong copy I had for the one signed by Mr. Balde, which I consider personally valuable.

For all these things, I commend Mr. Eleda and thank Anvil Publishing for having such a diligent and customer-centered employee. I appreciate the effort Mr. Eleda took to find my contact number, inform me of my mistake and deliver the book to a place most convenient for me.

I realized that the least I could do was write this letter of commendation to the company for Mr. Eleda's outstanding work. I have never experienced such care and diligence from someone working in this industry. This is the kind of person you want in management. I hope that he will be given that opportunity someday.

On the surface, this may appear to simply be about a P200 book, but for me, it's another story worth telling -- a reminder that there are people out there who do their work excellently no matter how simple they may seem on the outside. There's a lesson here somewhere.

God bless you all and best regards.


Respectfully,

Mark Robert A. Dy, J.D.

P.S. For the purpose of sharing this story, I am furnishing Mr. Abdon Balde, Jr. (the author of the said book), Atty. Louie Calvario (Copyright Head of IPOPHL), Atty. Andrea Pasion-Flores of NBDB and Mr. Alvin Buenaventura of FILCOLS.

Gatorade - A cautionary and success story on the importance of having a university IP Policy

I just came back from a very productive trip to Cebu and Dumaguete. My mission there was to teach university administrators and faculty members about intellectual property rights (IPRs) and why every school should have its own IP Policy.

Conducting Basic Orientation Seminar on Intellectual Property Rights to university administrators and faculty members from different schools all over the Visayan islands.

It was no surprise that there wasn't much accurate knowledge about IPRs floating around. I have been visiting schools all over the country for some time now and the same old recurring theme always comes to greet us: educators need to be educated about their IP rights and those of their students. They need to learn how their copyrights, trademarks, industrial designs, trade secrets, utility models and patents figure into their daily work.

After the basics, we then go into the more difficult task of crafting IP Policies for each individual school, institution or university. 

So what is an IP Policy and why is it so important when we already have the IP Code? 

IP Policies are rules set by a group, institution or even an individual to govern the ownership, management and transfer of IPRs. It's important for institutions and schools because the people working for them need to know how much of their IPRs they get to keep and how much they need to give up to be part of that group. 

Even if the IP Code is sufficient to provide protection of IPRs, the law also leaves us with a wide latitude of contractual freedom so that people and institutions get to decide how IPRs are managed among them. Upon this wide space, institutions need to craft a predictable rulebook on IPRs so that those who create them are able to manage their expectations as to how much money and credit they will receive for their work.

Universities and colleges are IP manufacturers of the highest grade. It's only a matter of time before that student stumbles upon that formula to destroy that formerly incurable disease or that professor invents human teleportation. What we believe to be science fiction is explored and made real every day in these schools. With such prolific intellectual activity, there is great potential for creation and commercialization of intellectual assets. 

The classic success and cautionary story on the importance of IP Policies is the story of how Gatorade came to be.

What we recognize today as the gold standard in sports drinks was created in the laboratories of the University of Florida in 1965 by a team of university researchers, upon the request of Florida Gators assistant coach Ray Graves -- the drink of course was later named after the team.

Taken from Wikipedia.org and used for educational & historical illustration only.

This drink was designed to quickly hydrate a player and replenish the carbohydrates and electrolytes lost during physical exertion. The invention was a massive success and was considered to be the tipping point that led the Gators to win their first Orange Bowl championship against the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets.

Word would then spread to the different schools and the different states and sports teams started ordering Gatorade by the truck. Gatorade was then purchased by the Quaker Oats Company and then by PepsiCo. It would be marketed worldwide and was accepted as the official sports drink of the NFL, the NBA, the NHL and even NASCAR. Today, Gatorade makes roughly a billion dollars in revenue each year. From this, the University of Florida has received $100 million in royalty payments alone. (http://www.gatorade.com/history/default.aspx)

Taken from www.gatorade.com and used for educational & historical illustration only.

So what's the problem here?

Well, for starters, there were a number of serious lawsuits as to the ownership of the Gatorade formula. Because there was no clear IP Policy in place during the time of its creation, the government was said that the researchers had no proprietary rights over the formula because they were using federal money to fund their research. The University of Florida also claimed IP rights over the formula because its facilities were used for its creation. 

After the bloody legal battle, a settlement was reached awarding 20% of the royalties to the university. 

Indeed, the story seems to end well. But one can't help but wonder how much more the university could have received if it only had an IP Policy in place. 

Going even further, could the researchers have had a larger share in the revenue? could the coach who initiated the project have received a small cut? could the student assistants who helped the researchers have received a portion of the rewards or at least credit for the invention?

All these things could have been clarified a school's IP Policy. A mere chapter in the student handbook could have spelled the difference between a million dollars and nothing. 

Discussing Copyright and IP Policy with faculty members of the Notre Dame University in Cotabato City (Photo by M.R. Dy © 2010)

Here in the Philippines, these same questions and conflicts arise every day. Each time a student submits a thesis or dissertation, the faculty member who spent long hours refining the work and advising the student wonders if he or she should get credit for the extra effort. Such credit could have been used to secure a professorial promotion or a study grant had there been a policy in place.

Each time a professor publishes a book that was edited by a team of students, they wonder if they should be credited as co-authors or if they deserve tiny bit of the royalties as a reward for their work. Such acknowledgement could have been included in the student's CV, giving him or her a chance at better employment and further studies.

Fair is only fair if you agree upon a set of rules before playing the game. People working in a university setting miss so many opportunities to improve their careers, their portfolios and their incomes because no IP Policy exists to manage their rights. I myself have been a victim of this. If we had an policy when I was still in college and law school, I could properly claim to be an author of at least three books. Right now, I don't even know what rights I have over my thesis.

A hotbed of invention and innovation -- The Agricultural Engineering Workshop at the University of Southern Mindanao, Kidapawan Campus (Photo by M.R. Dy © 2010)

We have been traveling the country from Baguio to General Santos City and have found the response of the different schools to be very encouraging. Today we have over 30 colleges and universities with active IP Policies and 20 others that are drafting theirs. This gold mine is slowly being excavated one school at a time.

Genius is everywhere. We simply have to manage it. 

What are Collective & Certification Marks?

As an attempt to replicate the success of foreign GI systems, the Philippines is crafting new rules to accommodate the use of collective marks and certification marks as GIs. Without creating a new law or a sui generis system, we intend to include the use of GIs into the mainstream trademarks system. 

Collective Marks

A Collective Mark is defined as any visible sign designated as such in the application for registration and capable of distinguishing the origin or any other common characteristic, including the quality of goods or services of different enterprises which use the sign under the control of the registered owner of the collective mark. 

Said marks are owned and used in common by a group or organization. Members of the group who comply with its rules are free to use the mark to show their affiliation. Through this mark, the members of the group or association are able to use its reputation and goodwill on their products or services.

The Triple A logo is used by the members of the American Automobile Association and serves as a mark of quality service.

U.S. Reg No. 1066462

Like trademarks, collective marks  can be powerful marketing tools that strengthen the identity of goods and guarantees of quality that protect the consumers from substandard counterfeit items. In addition, they may also be used to protect the territorial origins of the product and the people carrying out the industries in those territories.

Collective Marks may indicate geographic origin.

Example: Thai Jasmine Rice.

When used as a GI, a collective mark protects local industries from outside competition by giving the members of the group the exclusive right to use the mark to show genuineness of origin. 

Certification Marks

Certification marks are badges of approval managed by certifying agents that license their use to producers and merchants who are able to comply with specific standards. 

These marks may be used as GIs and are usually managed by local government units or local offices of the trade department in the territory indicated. 

However, private entities are free to register and manage these marks if they can demonstrate their capacity to set and test specific standards fairly. To ensure this, certification mark owners are prohibited from using the mark in business. They only act as certifying agents who test standards and license the mark for others to use. Consequently, they may charge fees for the use of the mark and other incidental services they provide, like marketing.

GIs are usually registered as certification marks in the U.S. because they are flexible enough to be used on a wider range of goods and services, compared to a collective mark, which is necessarily limited to the group’s collective business interest.

Certification Marks guarantee standards.

Example: ISO 9002 mark managed by the International Organization for Standardization.

One particular success story in the use of certification marks is Cotton USA. Since its launching in 1989 with a multi-million dollar advertising campaign, demand for garment, furniture and other products bearing the Cotton USA mark have spiked worldwide. Cotton USA imposes strict standards upon producers who apply for licenses to use the mark, requiring their products to be 100% cotton products with at least 50% U.S. cotton. 

Cotton USA requires licensees’ products to be made of 100% cotton with at least 50% U.S. cotton.

Today, the Cotton USA mark is a symbol of quality and value. Consumer awareness of the mark has grown from an average of 12% in 1989 to 40% in 2006. Studies made in countries like Korea, The Philippines and Taiwan, show that awareness of the mark is reported to be almost 90%. 

A good example of a certification mark used as a regional geographical indication is the famous Idaho Potato mark. It is managed by the Idaho Potato Commission and licensed to growers, packers-shippers and processors to certify the genuineness and quality of their Idaho potato products.  

The Idaho Potato Commission certifies the genuineness and quality of the Idaho Potato products of its licensees with the Grown in Idaho certification mark.

U.S. Reg No. 2914308

Certification marks may also be used to show that the goods were produced by the members of a certain group. For example, a mark can indicate that a labor union or guild created the product, thereby telling the consumer that the workers were given fair wages or that coffee farmers were paid a fair price for their harvest. With the use of the mark, value is added to the product, which can justify higher prices in the market.

The Fairtrade mark managed by the Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO) certifies products that comply with certain environmental, labor and developmental standards.

Another possible use for certification marks is to prompt consumer behavior by adding social value to a product. A mark can, for example, certify a product as “100% Produced with Green Technology”. It can provide critical information to health-aware individuals as in the case of marks certifying that toys are “Lead-free” or that food products have “Zero Sugar”. 

Example: Halal mark certifying that a product is permissible under Sharia law.

Finally, certification marks may be used to emphasize the quality, history and the cultural relevance of these products. A mark can, for example, suggest that the product was prepared exclusively by members of lumad groups in Mindanao, using traditional methods. The mark provides a back-story that can lead to greater consumer understanding and allow producers to fetch better prices for their wares.

Potential of GI use in the Philippines

The Philippine islands are teeming with local goods and produce that are world-class in quality, but not yet in reputation. IP Philippines seeks to promote the use of trademarks, collective marks and certification marks by these target producers to enhance the market. 

Examples of these target products are Cebu Mangoes & Chicharon, Iloilo Butterscotch & Piaya, Bicol Pili Nuts, Iligan Peanuts, Cagayan de Oro Cashews, Davao Durian, Batangas Barako Coffee, Vigan Longganiza, Ilocos Norte Bagnet, Bukidnon Coffee, Camiguin Lanzones and hundreds of other products open to GI registration.

When blended together strategically, trademarks, collective marks and certification marks create a formidable marketing device that can raise the competitiveness of locally produced goods in the world market. Managed wisely, these marks will not only promote Philippine products, but the Philippines herself. This is a massive opportunity for business, tourism and national publicity.

This is possible for the Philippines. In fact, it is a close certainty. All we need is to give our producers a little education and encouragement. IP Philippines is ready to take the lead in this endeavor.