DLJ- Academics GROUP

SUGGESTED ANSWER; COMMERCIAL AND TAXATION LAWS; 2025 BAR EXAMINATIONS

QUESTION NO. 12

XYZ Inc. filed before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) Trademark Application No. 1-2025-12345 for the mark “TURTLE AND DEVICE.”

XYZ Inc.’s mark is an image of a turtle with the word “Turtle” on its side. ABC Inc. opposed the application, alleging that XYZ Inc.’s mark is confusingly similar or identical to its own mark, which is an image of a tortoise sans any accompanying words.

In its defense, XYZ Inc. argued that the entirety or totality, not just the dominant part, of the marks should be considered in determining whether there is infringement.

Decide with reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER (ALAC METHOD)

Read more in the comment section.

𝐏𝐑𝐎 𝟒𝐀’𝐬 𝐃𝐀𝐈𝐋𝐘 𝐍𝐄𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐎 𝐊𝐍𝐎𝐖
“Araw-araw na Kaalaman, Gabay sa Disiplina at Kapayapaan.
Dahil sa Tamang Kaalaman, Ligtas ang Pamayanan."
"Crime Prevention Tips"

Castro thanks Lacson for rejecting civil-military junta Malacanang on Sunday welcomed Senate Pro Tempore Panfilo Lacson's candor in admitting that he rejected an offer to join a civilian military junta and other unconstitutional modes of changing leadership amid corruption allegations hounding the government.

Harry Roque invokes non-refoulment: 'I can't be arrested nor returned' ​Former Duterte presidential spokesperson Harry Roque, who is currently seeking asylum in the Netherlands, on Sunday claimed that he remains protected from arrest and repatriation to the Philippines under the principle of non-refoulement amid the government's moves to cancel his passport and reque...

The has ruled that a congressional inquiry on the spread of fake news online did not violate the right to free speech of vloggers invited as resource persons.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 dismissed the petition filed by Ernesto S. Abines, Jr. 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭. to prohibit the House of Representatives (House) from requiring them to attend legislative inquiries involving their social media posts.

In December 2024, Representative Robert Ace S. Barbers delivered two privilege speeches wherein he raised concerns about “paid trolls” and “malicious vloggers” allegedly spreading online misinformation and launching coordinated attacks against public officials. This led the House Committees on Public Order and Safety; on Information and Communications Technology; and on Public Information (House Tri-Committee) to hold a joint inquiry.

The petitioners were invited to attend as resource speakers, which prompted them to question before the SC the validity of the hearings.

They argued that the inquiries violated their right to free speech, and that the House Tri-Committee humiliated and insulted the invited resource speakers. They claimed that the proceedings aimed to silence them and regulate their social media content, creating a chilling effect on free expression.

Disagreeing with the petitioners, the SC ruled that there was no violation of the vloggers’ right to free speech.

Article III, Section 4 of the 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and the press as pillars of a democratic society. These rights have two aspects: freedom from prior restraint or government censorship, and freedom from subsequent punishment. While these rights may be restricted, any regulation must be aligned with legitimate objectives.

In this case, simply inviting the vloggers as resource persons did not violate their freedom of expression. The invitation did not regulate what they said or how they expressed themselves. Congress, as part of its functions, only wanted to gather information for crafting laws, not to punish anyone for spreading “fake news” or to suppress speech.

The SC also ruled that Congress cannot be prevented from inviting resource persons to legislative inquiries just because the topic involves speech. Congress has the power to enact laws penalizing forms of speech that are not protected under the 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, such as those that create disorder or threaten society.

The SC said that neither did Rep. Barbers’ privilege speeches violate petitioners’ freedom of expression, as the same were not meant to silence or punish anyone. He delivered the speeches in his official capacity, addressing the deliberate spread of misinformation that harms not only public officials, but also ordinary citizens.

The SC also emphasized that Congress has broad authority to regulate matters for the common good. In this case, the House acted within its power when it conducted an inquiry to find ways to address the spread of false or misleading information, which can undermine public trust and threaten social stability.

However, this power to conduct inquiries must be in aid of legislation, held in accordance with Congress’ duly published rules of procedure, and respectful of the rights of resource persons and witnesses.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155440.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155425.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155430.

The has ruled that wealth acquired by a public officer during their time in office that clearly exceeds their lawful income is presumed unlawfully acquired and may be forfeited, even if registered under the names of other individuals.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division upheld the forfeiture of properties, bank deposits, and investment accounts in the name of retired Lieutenant General Jacinto C. Ligot (General Ligot), as well as assets traced to him but registered under his wife, children, and relatives.

The Ombudsman conducted a lifestyle investigation on General Ligot—who served in the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 1970 until his retirement in 2004, and was a commissioned comptroller during the relevant period—to determine whether the properties he acquired during active service exceeded his salary and other lawful income.

Its probe into General Ligot’s declared assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth from 1982 to 2003, which did not reflect the actual properties under his name and those of his close family members, led to a petition for forfeiture filed against him before the Sandiganbayan. Also named in the petition were his wife, their children, and his sister and brother-in-law, who were allegedly used as fronts to conceal his assets.

The Sandiganbayan ordered the forfeiture of the properties worth PHP 102 million as well as deposits and investment funds amounting to PHP 53 million after finding that the same were unlawfully acquired.

The SC upheld the Sandiganbayan’s ruling, noting that General Ligot’s wife and children did not have independent income sources but still owned properties and held significant bank and investment accounts under their names.

Regarding the condominiums, even though they were titled in his sister’s name, the amortizations were paid by General Ligot. The condominium listed under his brother-in-law’s name was initially bought by General Ligot’s wife, who lacked her own income.

The SC held that these circumstances indicate that General Ligot was the true owner, even if the legal titles were in other people’s names.

Under Republic Act No. 1379, properties of public officers are presumed to be illegally acquired when they are manifestly out of proportion to their lawful income.

This presumption applies not only to properties under the public officer’s name but also to those hidden or transferred to others, as long as true ownership can be traced to the public officer.

The SC emphasized that registration under another person’s name does not prevent forfeiture when true ownership can be traced to the public officer.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155660.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155651.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.