International Update Continued establish a customs watch (in the past, the deadline was three working days). Moreover, under the simplified procedure, the destruction of the goods at the trade mark owner’s expense must be requested within a deadline of 10 working days, which cannot be extended (in the past, an extension was possible). As under the previous legislation, filing a lawsuit is necessary only if the owner of the goods explicitly objects to the seizure. The deadline is 10 working days from the date of receipt of the customs notification, extendible for another 10 working days. Failure to file a lawsuit or to request the destruction of the goods under the simplified procedure when the conditions for such destruction are fulfilled will result in the release of goods. In addition, Customs has the right to cancel the customs watch and to refuse to re-establish it for a period of one year. Finally, the new law introduces a special procedure for the destruction of small consignments containing suspected counterfeits - that is, postal or express courier consignments that contain three units or fewer, or weigh less than two kilos. Customs will destroy such consignments without sending a prior notification to the rights holder, at the rights holder’s expense, provided that: • • the goods are not perishable; the rights holder has explicitly requested this procedure in its application for customs watch; and the declarant or the holder of the goods does not explicitly object to the destruction of the goods within a 10 working-day deadline. Property Code of the Philippines (IP Code), which states that a mark cannot be registered if it is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a mark with an earlier filing or priority date, in respect of: (i) or (iii) if it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. Pediatrica’s mark had been filed on 30 March 2012 while Realvet’s mark was filed on 19 September 2012, qualifying Pediatrica’s mark as the earlier mark. Realvet had failed to respond to the Notice to Answer. Under the Rules, in the event the Respondent fails to Answer, the Respondent will be considered in default and the Hearing Officer will resolve the issues based on the pleadings and evidence submitted. It was held that the two marks were almost identical, and that the difference was merely in the fifth letter of both marks. Thus, the marks were deemed to look and sound alike to each other. It was further held that merely adding, removing or changing some letters of a registered trade mark is not enough to avoid causing confusion. Such close similarity was held to cause confusion and would deceive the ordinary consumers. the same goods or services; or (ii) closely related goods or services; holders to provide more information and materials about genuine goods in order to enable customs officials to detect counterfeits. This includes technical information about genuine goods and distribution channels. It remains to be seen how much details Customs will request in practice and whether this will apply to all goods covered by the trade mark registration, or only those which are of main interest to the IP rights holder. Further, the new decree provides for the destruction of goods under a simplified procedure, without a court order, provided that the holder of the goods consents to the destruction (explicitly or tacitly) within a deadline of 10 working days (three working days for perishable goods). The IP rights holder must confirm that the goods are counterfeits and request their destruction within a deadline of 10 working days. This deadline can no longer be extended, except if the IP rights holder decides to file a lawsuit. The old decree allowed for a deadline extension of 10 working days, both for the request for destruction of the goods under the simplified procedure and for the lawsuit. Finally, the new decree introduces a special procedure for the destruction of small consignments (ie, postal or express courier consignments that contain three units or fewer or weigh less than two kilos). Customs will destroy such consignments without sending a prior notification to the rights holder, at the latter’s expense, provided that the goods are not perishable, that the rights holder has explicitly requested this procedure in its application for customs watch, and that the declarant or the holder of the goods has not explicitly objected to the destruction within 10 working days. If there is an objection, customs will inform the IP rights holder, which will then have 10 working days to institute civil proceedings. Dealing with small consignments requires certain technical adjustments which Serbian customs has yet to implement, so it is expected that it may take some time before this procedure starts to work in practice. Serbia Gordana Pavlovic, Cabinet Pavlovic, Brussels and Belgrade At a session held on 5 March 2015, the Serbian government enacted a decree on the conditions and procedures for the application of measures for customs enforcement of IP rights, replacing the 2010 decree. The new decree was published in the Official Gazette No 25 of 13 March 2015. It came into force on 21 March 2015 and will be applicable from 1 September 2015. The decree is modelled after EU Regulation 608/2013 concerning customs enforcement of IP rights and reflects Serbia’s efforts to keep its customs legislation harmonized with the EU legislation. It is important that IP rights holders take the time to establish a customs watch in Serbia without waiting for goods to be seized ex officio, because the deadline for establishing a customs watch in ex officio cases is only four working days. A liability declaration is no longer required as a separate document, as it is now integrated in the application for customs watch. On the other hand, the new decree requires IP rights • If the declarant or the holder of the goods objects, Customs will inform the rights holder, who then has 10 working days to institute civil proceedings. Philippines Jennifer D. Fajelagutan and Denise Mirandah mirandah asia (Philippines) inc Pediatrica Inc. (Pediatrica) filed an Opposition to the registration of Trade Mark Application MYCOFERM filed in the name of Realvet Incorporated (Realvet) in Class 5. Pediatrica based the Opposition on its registered mark MYCODERM registered in Class 5 as well. While Realvet’s mark had been applied for veterinary products, Pediatrica’s mark covered topical corticosteroid. The Opposition was based on Section 123.1 (d) of Republic Act No. 8293, also known as the Intellectual Slovenia Gordana Pavlovic, Cabinet Pavlovic, Brussels and Belgrade The Slovenian IP Office reversed its initial refusal of the trade mark SOFTFIT with respect to goods in Class 10 and sent a Statement of Grant of Protection to WIPO on 12 May 2015. On 15 October 2014 the office had provisionally refused protection of Continued on Page 11 7