.png)
When you apply for a trademark in the Philippines, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) examines your application to see if it meets the legal requirements. Sometimes, IPOPHL issues an Office Action raising objections—like saying your mark is too descriptive or too similar to an existing one.
If you respond but the examiner is still not convinced, IPOPHL will issue what’s called a Final Refusal. Think of it as the examiner saying, “We’ve reviewed your arguments, but the issues remain.” This is usually the second rejection, based on the same grounds as the first.
Common reasons for refusal include:
A final refusal is not the end of the road. You still have several options:
You can submit new arguments, legal bases, or evidence. For example, if IPOPHL says your mark is descriptive, you could show proof that it has gained distinctiveness through long use in the market. What doesn’t work is simply repeating the same arguments—you need fresh grounds or evidence.
If you believe the examiner made a legal or factual error, you can appeal to the Director of the Bureau of Trademarks. If that fails, you can elevate the case to the IPOPHL Director General, the Court of Appeals, and even the Supreme Court if necessary.
If your mark was refused because of similarity with another registered mark, sometimes the other trademark owner is willing to sign a consent agreement. IPOPHL may then allow both marks to exist, especially if confusion is unlikely.
If the refusal is based on a blocking registration that hasn’t been used for at least three consecutive years, you can petition to cancel that registration under Section 151 of the IP Code. If successful, this clears the path for your own application.
In practice, many applicants file a Request for Reconsideration and a Notice of Appeal at the same time, especially if deadlines are near. This way, you don’t lose your right to appeal while waiting for IPOPHL’s response.
One of the most famous Philippine cases is McDonald’s Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. (G.R. No. 143993, 2004). The Supreme Court ruled that “Big Mak” was confusingly similar to McDonald’s “Big Mac,” leading to the cancellation of “Big Mak.” This shows how IPOPHL and the courts strictly apply the rule against confusingly similar marks.
Similarly, marks that are just descriptive words (like “Best Soap” for soap products) are usually refused—unless the applicant can prove that the public now associates that phrase with their specific business.
Sometimes applicants try to register things that are more appropriate for copyright protection—like a short story title, a logo design, or an artwork. IPOPHL may refuse these as trademarks if they don’t function as brand identifiers.
A better approach is dual protection:
✅ Bottom line: A Final Refusal from IPOPHL doesn’t mean your trademark journey is over. You still have legal remedies—whether through reconsideration, appeal, cancellation, or agreements with other trademark owners. Many successful registrations in the Philippines started with a refusal but ended with persistence and the right legal strategy.