.png)
.png)
In a landmark decision, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) has sided with veteran television hosts Tito Sotto, Vic Sotto, and Joey de Leon (collectively “TVJ”) in their legal battle over the ownership of the iconic “Eat Bulaga” trademark.
The ruling, which became public shortly after issuance, ordered the cancellation of TAPE, Inc.’s registration of the “Eat Bulaga” mark. This came after TVJ filed a petition asserting that they were the true originators of the name, with Joey de Leon credited for coining the title decades before TAPE registered it in 2013.
TVJ argued that the brand had acquired secondary meaning and was inseparably linked with their 44-year legacy on the show. IPOPHL agreed, emphasizing that the trio had built goodwill and reputation that TAPE could not rightfully claim as its own. In its decision, IPOPHL noted that TAPE had failed to present convincing evidence to counter TVJ’s claims, and in some respects even validated TVJ’s narrative.
As a result, IPOPHL cancelled TAPE’s registrations for “Eat Bulaga,” “EB,” and related marks, effectively barring TAPE from using them in commerce or media.
The ruling highlights the importance of first use in trade and historical association in Philippine trademark law. Although TAPE secured formal registration in 2013, TVJ was able to show that the mark had long been associated with them since the program’s inception in 1979. Under the Philippine IP Code (R.A. 8293), actual and continuous use of a mark is a crucial factor in determining ownership.
The decision reinforces that a trademark is not just a legal registration but also a representation of goodwill. TVJ’s decades-long stewardship of “Eat Bulaga” meant that Filipino audiences directly associated the brand with them. This aligns with IPOPHL’s guidelines on “acquired distinctiveness” or secondary meaning.
While the ruling centered on trademark ownership, it also has implications for copyright law. The name “Eat Bulaga” itself is a literary creation attributed to Joey de Leon, making it not only a trademark but also potentially subject to copyright protection under R.A. 8293, Chapter II on original literary works. This dual protection strengthens TVJ’s claim, since both trademark law and copyright law recognize authorship and originality as core rights.
The IPOPHL ruling in favor of TVJ is more than a celebrity case—it is a textbook example of how Philippine IP law protects originators, reputation, and goodwill over mere formal registration. Much like in the Zuneca v. Natrapharm case, it confirms that trademarks are not merely about filing dates but about true commercial identity and consumer association.
This case will likely be cited in future Philippine trademark disputes involving legacy brands, television programs, and even creative copyright-linked works.