The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) is drafting the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) on geographical indications (GI) to ensure the protection of unique local products like Guimaras Mangoes, Tau Sebu T’nalak, among others, against infringement.
“We hope we can finalize and implement the IRR soon so we can make our unique and high-quality Philippine products more attractive. Supporting these goods to have the global spotlight they deserve, will make a tangible difference in the lives of our farmers, our weavers and all who make up our GI landscape,” said Rowel Barba, IPOPHL director -general.
The IRR, drafted by the Bureau of Trademarks, aims to fulfill the recognition of GIs as protectible IP under the IP Code of 1997. It will also fulfill the obligation of the Philippines as a member of the World Trade Organization to provide reciprocal rights and GI protection to other members.
The draft IRR defines GIs as “any indication which identifies a good as originating in a territory, region or locality, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin and/or human factors.”
GIs in the Philippines are protected under the Trademarks section of the Intellectual Property Code of 1997. Guimaras Mangoes and the Tau Sebu T’nalak, registered as collective marks, are identified as potential GIs.
Other potential GIs are Bicol Pili, Davao Pomelo, Cordillera Heirloom Rice; Camiguin Lanzones; Davao Cacao; Kalinga Coffee; Antique’s Bagtason Loom; Aurora’s Sabutan Weave; Samar’s Basey Banig; Basilan and Zamboanga’s Yakan cloth; and, most recently, the Masbate beef and Baguio Strawberry.
Under the draft, GI registrants have right to prevent the use of their products in the following manner: misleading the public as to the geographical origin of the goods; falsely representing to the public that the goods originate in another territory; for wines or spirits, using in translation or accompanied by expressions such as “kind,” “type,” “style,” “imitation,” “method,” “as produced in” or other similar qualifying terms; for agricultural products, foodstuff and any product of handicraft or industry, using in translation or accompanied by expressions such as “kind,” “type,” “style,” “imitation,” “method,” “as produced in” or other similar qualifying terms, if such use would be misleading to the public; constituting an act of unfair competition as defined by the Paris Convention; and any other use similar or analogous to the above.
