CyberCode.ph · Philippines

How to Send a Trademark Cease-and-Desist Letter in the Philippines

Last updated October 3, 2026 · Practical privacy, cybersecurity and technology-law guidance
Professional signature representing a trademark cease-and-desist letter in the Philippines

By Cybercode.ph Editorial Team

Last materially reviewed: September 6, 2026

Direct Answer

A Philippine trademark cease-and-desist letter is a private written demand, not a court process. Looking for patent infringement? For a patented invention or process, use the separate guide to sending a patent infringement cease-and-desist letter, including claim analysis and delivery records. Its force comes from Republic Act No. 8293, the Intellectual Property Code: Section 147 gives a registered owner exclusive rights, Section 155 defines infringement, and Section 168 covers unfair competition even without registration. No law prescribes its form, and no lawyer’s signature is required. Before sending anything, verify your registration on the IPOPHL database and preserve your evidence.

Key Takeaways

  • Under Section 122 of RA 8293, rights in a mark are acquired through registration. Without a registration, your demand rests on unfair competition (Section 168) or trade name protection (Section 165.2), not on Section 155 infringement.
  • No Philippine statute, IPOPHL rule or Supreme Court rule dictates the contents, format, deadline or method of service of a demand letter. Every part of it is a strategic choice.
  • A letter is often the wrong first move online: it tips off a seller who then deletes the listings, chat logs and shop pages you have not yet captured.
  • Once a case is filed, IPOPHL mediation is mandatory under Memorandum Circular No. 008, s. 2018, so your letter is really the opening of a negotiation you will be required to have.
  • An IPOPHL Bureau of Legal Affairs administrative complaint needs total damages of at least PHP 200,000. Below that, your routes are platform takedown, civil action or criminal referral.
  • Overstating your rights carries risk: Civil Code Articles 19, 20 and 21 expose a rights holder who makes a baseless or abusive demand to a damages claim.

On This Page

Decision Snapshot

Your situation General rule What changes the answer Likely next step
You hold a Philippine registration and someone uses a confusingly similar mark on related goods Section 147 gives you the exclusive right to prevent that use; Section 155 makes it infringement Whether the goods are genuinely related, and whether the other party is a prior good-faith user under Section 159.1 Demand letter, with platform takedown in parallel if the use is online
Your mark is unregistered but you have built goodwill No Section 155 claim, but Section 168 protects goodwill against passing off Whether you can prove goodwill and deception; whether the mark is well-known under Section 123.1(e) File your application first, then demand on unfair competition grounds
Only your business or trade name is copied Section 165.2 protects trade names “even prior to or without registration” Whether the use actually misleads the public as to source Demand citing Section 165, with SEC or DTI records as proof
Counterfeits sold through an online marketplace Platform notice usually removes listings faster than correspondence Whether the seller is identifiable and the volume justifies formal action Platform IP report first, letter to the seller once evidence is preserved
You want IPOPHL to hear the case The Bureau of Legal Affairs has original jurisdiction over administrative IP violation complaints Total damages claimed must be at least PHP 200,000 Verified complaint in triplicate, then mandatory mediation

Governing Law and Authorities

No Philippine law creates or regulates the cease-and-desist letter itself. What the law supplies is the substance you are entitled to assert.

  • Section 122, RA 8293: “The rights in a mark shall be acquired through registration made validly in accordance with the provisions of this law.” This is where imported American templates go wrong. The Philippines is a registration-based system, not a use-based one.
  • Section 147.1: the owner of a registered mark has the exclusive right to prevent third parties from “using in the course of trade identical or similar signs or containers for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the trademark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion.”
  • Section 155: infringement covers use in commerce of a reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colourable imitation of a registered mark likely to cause confusion, including application to labels, packaging and advertisements. Infringement “takes place at the moment any of the acts stated in Subsection 155.1 or this subsection are committed regardless of whether there is actual sale.” You need not prove a completed sale before you write.
  • Section 138: a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of validity, your ownership and your exclusive right. Attaching it turns an assertion into a supported claim.
  • Section 159.1: a prior user in good faith, before your filing or priority date, keeps a limited right. This is the most common valid answer you will receive.
  • Section 165.2(a): trade names are protected “even prior to or without registration, against any unlawful act committed by third parties.”
  • Sections 168 and 169: unfair competition protects the goodwill you have built as a property right and catches anyone who employs “deception or any other means contrary to good faith” to pass off goods; Section 169 covers false designation of origin and false description, useful where the copying is of packaging or advertising rather than the mark.
  • Sections 156, 157 and 170: civil damages and injunction, destruction of infringing materials, and criminal penalties of two to five years’ imprisonment plus a fine of PHP 50,000 to PHP 200,000.
  • Section 160: a qualifying foreign owner not doing business here may still sue, licensed or not; Section 125 requires a non-domiciled applicant to designate a Philippine resident for service.
  • Civil Code Articles 19, 20 and 21 (RA 386): the abuse-of-rights provisions that cut against you if the demand is baseless.

What the Letter Must Contain, and What Each Element Does

Because no rule prescribes the contents, every element has to earn its place. A working Philippine demand letter does five jobs.

1. It proves you are entitled to complain

Name the registered owner exactly as it appears on the certificate, give the registration number, filing and registration dates, and the class and covered goods. Attach the certificate; the recipient’s counsel will check the register anyway.

2. It fixes the conduct in time

Describe the specific acts: exact listing URLs, account handles, product names, packaging, signage or advertising, with capture dates and times. Vagueness invites a denial you cannot rebut.

3. It states the legal basis honestly

Cite Section 155 only if you hold a registration covering related goods or services. If you do not, cite Section 168 or Section 165 and say so plainly. Claiming a registration you do not have hands the recipient a counterclaim.

4. It asks for something a person can actually do

Take down these five URLs, stop using this word on packaging, rename the page, account for remaining stock, sign the attached undertaking. “Cease and desist from all infringing activity” is unverifiable and reads as bluster.

5. It preserves your position

Add an evidence-preservation demand, a dated deadline, a reservation of rights, and a statement that the letter is without prejudice to administrative, civil and criminal remedies. Name only remedies you would genuinely pursue.

Boundaries and the Risks of Sending One

What the letter cannot do. It compels nothing. It is not a cease and desist order; only the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs, in a filed case, may issue one, and only a court may issue an injunction or restraining order. Nothing in RA 8293 obliges a recipient to reply.

Unjustified threats. The IP Code has no dedicated “groundless threats” action of the kind found in some other jurisdictions, but the exposure arrives through another door. Civil Code Article 19 requires everyone to act with justice and observe honesty and good faith in exercising rights; Article 20 makes anyone who wilfully or negligently causes damage contrary to law liable to indemnify; Article 21 reaches wilful loss caused contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. A demand that misstates your registration, threatens unsupportable criminal prosecution, or is copied to the recipient’s customers can generate a claim against you.

Tipping off and spoliation. A letter tells an infringer exactly what you know. Sellers routinely respond by deleting the listing, closing the shop and reopening under a new handle, taking the order history and chat logs with them. Once that evidence sits on someone else’s server, you cannot get it back. Capture first, demand second.

Barangay conciliation. Where the dispute is between individuals actually residing in the same city or municipality, RA 7160 Sections 408 and 412 generally require confrontation before the lupon before a complaint may be filed in court. Corporate parties, and parties residing in different cities or municipalities, fall outside the lupon’s authority. No imported template will mention this, and it is worth checking before you promise immediate court action.

Deadlines keep running. Nothing in the IP Code provides that a demand letter suspends a prescriptive period. Treat limitation periods as running and have them assessed separately.

Philippine Scenarios (Hypothetical)

Illustrative hypotheticals, not case reports or predictions.

A registered mark on marketplace listings

A Quezon City skincare brand holds a Class 3 registration and finds twelve listings using its mark on similar products. Section 155 applies squarely. The sensible order is to capture all twelve listings with URLs and timestamps, make a test purchase, file platform IP reports, then write to the seller named on the delivery documents demanding an accounting and a written undertaking.

An unregistered mark and a copycat café

A Cebu café has traded under a distinctive name for six years without registering it. A new café opens nearby with near-identical name and signage. There is no Section 155 claim; the demand rests on Section 168 unfair competition and, if the name is on DTI or SEC records, Section 165.2. The first practical step is usually to file the trademark application, because the other side may be applying too.

A prior good-faith user answers back

A registrant demands that a small Davao manufacturer stop using a similar mark. The manufacturer produces invoices showing continuous use two years before the registrant’s filing date. Section 159.1 protects that use. A demand sent without checking for prior use has now weakened the registrant’s negotiating position.

Evidence to Gather and Preserve Before You Send

For online infringement, a screenshot alone is weak. Build a package a mediator, hearing officer or prosecutor can follow.

  • The underlying URL, not just the image. Record the full listing, shop and profile URLs separately from the screenshot; a screenshot with no address proves nothing about where the content lived.
  • Timestamps. Date and time of viewing, ideally with the system clock and address bar in the same frame.
  • Seller identity. Shop name, seller ID, registered business name, DTI or SEC details if displayed, contact numbers, pickup or return address, and the name on the delivery receipt from a test purchase.
  • Order records. Order numbers, invoices, proofs of payment, courier waybills, and the goods themselves kept with a chain-of-custody note.
  • Platform case IDs. Every IP report generates a reference number; it establishes when the platform was put on notice.
  • Archived captures. Independent web archive captures, so the evidence does not depend only on your own files.
  • Your own rights documents. Certificate of registration, current status printed from the IPOPHL trademark search, proof of continued use, and evidence of goodwill if you rely on Section 168.

Procedure and Next Steps

  1. Verify your own rights. Confirm the registration is live, in your name, and covers related goods, using the IPOPHL trademark search. If you have none, start with trademark registration.
  2. Preserve the evidence using the checklist above, before any contact.
  3. Decide the sequence. If removal speed matters most, file platform IP reports first. See reporting counterfeit products online and what to do when someone is using your trademark.
  4. Draft the letter using the annotated template below, tailored to the rights you actually hold.
  5. Serve it so you can prove service. No rule governs service of a private demand, so use methods that generate independent records: personal delivery against a signed receipt, registered mail with registry receipt and return card, courier with proof of delivery, and email to a published address. Use more than one channel and keep every receipt. Proof of notice is what later supports an argument that continued use was knowing rather than innocent, which matters to damages under Section 156, where damages may be doubled on a showing of actual intent to defraud.
  6. Set a realistic window. Nothing fixes the period; seven to fifteen calendar days is common for straightforward online cases. State a calendar date, not a number of days.
  7. Escalate deliberately to platform enforcement, an IPOPHL administrative complaint, a criminal complaint, or a civil action. These are not mutually exclusive.

If you escalate to IPOPHL

The Bureau of Legal Affairs has original jurisdiction over administrative complaints for IP violations where total damages claimed are not less than PHP 200,000. The complaint is filed in triplicate, verified, with a certification of non-forum shopping, witness affidavits and marked documentary evidence. As published on IPOPHL’s schedule of fees, 6 September 2026, the filing fee for an IP violation complaint is PHP 15,000 for a small entity (assets of PHP 100 million or less) and PHP 19,200 for a big entity; a trademark opposition orcancellation is PHP 10,000 or PHP 14,600. Confirm the current schedule before filing.

Expect mediation. Under IPOPHL’s pre-litigation mediation process and Memorandum Circular No. 008, s. 2018, administrative IP violation complaints, inter partes cases including opposition, technology transfer payment disputes, certain licence disputes and appeals to the Director General are referred to mandatory mediation. The period runs sixty days from referral, extendible by thirty days on joint written request. Non-appearance is serious: a complainant who fails to appear or pay may have the case dismissed, and a respondent who fails to appear may be declared in default. An approved compromise agreement has the effect of a judgment on the merits and is immediately executory. Published ADR fees are PHP 4,040 per party for pre-litigation mediation and PHP 7,575 per party for mediation outside litigation. Because mediation is coming either way, a letter that already contains a workable settlement path often saves months.

Other routes

IPOPHL’s IP Rights Enforcement Office accepts reports of counterfeiting and piracy and can issue notices, warnings and visitorial orders, refer matters to the PNP, NBI and Bureau of Customs, and recommend applications for search warrants. Criminal liability under Section 170 is pursued through the prosecutor’s office, usually with NBI or PNP support; civil actions under Section 156 go to court.

Where the infringement runs through an online marketplace, RA 11967, the Internet Transactions Act of 2023, matters. Section 26 requires e-marketplaces to act expeditiously to remove or disable access to goods or services that infringe intellectual property rights, and exposes a marketplace to subsidiary liability where it fails to exercise ordinary diligence in that duty. A documented notice to the platform is therefore not merely a takedown request; it starts the clock on the platform’s own obligations.

Remedies and Realistic Outcomes

A letter guarantees nothing. Many recipients ignore it, some comply at once, and some reply with a defence you must take seriously.

  • Platform: listing removal, seller penalties, and in repeat cases shop closure. Fastest route, but no money and no binding undertaking.
  • Administrative (IPOPHL BLA): provisional remedies including restraining orders, preliminary injunction and attachment; and after trial, cease and desist orders, assurances of voluntary compliance, condemnation of infringing goods, administrative fines from PHP 5,000 to PHP 150,000, suspension or cancellation of permits and licences, and assessment of damages. Requires the PHP 200,000 threshold.
  • Civil: under Section 156, damages measured by the reasonable profit you would have made or the profit the defendant made, doubled where actual intent to defraud is shown, plus injunction; and under Section 157, destruction of infringing goods, labels, plates and moulds without compensation to the defendant.
  • Criminal: under Section 170, two to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of PHP 50,000 to PHP 200,000, independent of civil and administrative sanctions. Criminal cases are slow and evidence-intensive; they are leverage, not a shortcut.

Common Mistakes

  • Using an American template that assumes rights arise from use. Section 122 says rights are acquired through registration.
  • Claiming a scope broader than the certificate, such as rights over a whole word across all classes when the registration covers one class.
  • Calling genuine parallel-imported or second-hand goods “counterfeit” without evidence.
  • Sending the letter before capturing the listings, so the evidence disappears within hours.
  • Threatening criminal prosecution as pressure where the facts support no Section 155, 168 or 169.1 violation.
  • Copying customers, landlords or platform partners into the letter, which converts a private demand into potential Article 19 to 21 exposure.
  • Setting a deadline that has already passed by the time registered mail arrives.
  • Ignoring that the recipient may respond by petitioning to cancel your registration or opposing your pending application.

Annotated Sample Cease-and-Desist Letter

This is a template for educational use. It is not legal advice and not a form approved by any Philippine authority. Every bracketed field must be replaced with real, verified information, and the whole letter must be adapted to your actual rights and facts. Do not send it as it stands. The italic notes explain what each part does and are not part of the letter.

[Letterhead of the trademark owner or its counsel]

[Date]

[Full name of recipient / registered business name]
[Position, if an officer of a company]
[Complete address, including barangay, city or municipality and province]
[Email address] · [Mobile number]

Re: Unauthorised use of the registered mark “[MARK]” — Philippine Registration No. [number]

Note: the subject line does the work of a case caption. Naming the registration number invites the recipient to verify it and signals that the claim is checkable.

Dear [Name],

1. The rights holder and the mark. We write on behalf of [Registered owner’s exact legal name], a [corporation duly organised under Philippine law / sole proprietorship registered with the DTI] with principal office at [address]. Our client is the registered owner of the mark “[MARK]”, registered with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines under Registration No. [number], filed on [date] and registered on [date], covering [goods or services] in Class [number]. A copy of the Certificate of Registration is attached as Annex “A”.

Note: state ownership exactly as it appears on the certificate. Under Section 138 the certificate is prima facie evidence of validity, ownership and exclusive right. If you have no registration, this paragraph must instead describe the goodwill you have built and the period of use, and the letter must rely on Section 168 or Section 165.

2. The conduct complained of. It has come to our attention that you are using the sign “[the infringing sign]” in the course of trade in connection with [goods or services], specifically through: (a) the listings at [full URL], [full URL] and [full URL], captured on [date and time]; (b) the [platform] shop “[shop name]”, seller ID [ID]; and (c) [packaging / signage / advertising, described]. Screenshots and archive captures are attached as Annexes “B” to “[X]”, and the delivery receipt for a test purchase made on [date] under order number [number] is attached as Annex “[X]”.

Note: specificity is the difference between a letter that can be answered and one that can be brushed off. Attaching the evidence also makes it harder for the recipient to later claim ignorance, which matters to damages.

3. Legal basis. Section 147.1 of Republic Act No. 8293 grants the owner of a registered mark the exclusive right to prevent third parties from using, in the course of trade, identical or similar signs for identical or similar goods or services where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. Section 155 provides that the use in commerce of a reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colourable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising of goods or services, where such use is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception, constitutes infringement, and that infringement takes place whether or not any sale actually occurs. Your use of “[the infringing sign]” on [goods or services] is likely to cause confusion as to source, sponsorship or affiliation with our client. [Where applicable: Your conduct additionally constitutes unfair competition under Section 168 of the same Act.]

Note: cite only what applies to you. If your mark is unregistered, delete the Section 147 and 155 discussion entirely and rely on Section 168 or Section 165.2. Asserting a registration you do not hold is the most damaging error in a Philippine demand letter.

4. Demands. We therefore demand that, on or before [specific calendar date], you: (a) permanently cease and desist from all use of “[the infringing sign]” or any confusingly similar sign in connection with [goods or services]; (b) remove or delist the listings identified in paragraph 2 and confirm removal in writing; (c) rename or deactivate the shop and social media accounts bearing the sign; (d) cease distribution of and account for all remaining stock, packaging, labels and promotional materials bearing the sign, and confirm their disposal; (e) provide a written accounting of units sold, gross revenue and the identity of your supplier; and (f) execute the written undertaking attached as Annex “[X]”.

Note: every demand should be something the recipient can complete and you can verify. Vague demands cannot be complied with and cannot be checked.

5. Preservation of evidence. You are requested to preserve, and not to delete, alter or conceal, all records relating to the matters above, including listings, product pages, chat and messaging records, order and payment records, supplier communications, invoices and inventory records, pending resolution of this matter.

Note: this creates a written record of notice. It will not stop a determined infringer from deleting everything, which is exactly why you capture the evidence before you send the letter.

6. Consequences and reservation of rights. Should we not receive a satisfactory written response by [date], our client will consider all remedies available under Philippine law, which may include an administrative complaint before the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines, a civil action for damages and injunctive relief under Section 156 of Republic Act No. 8293, referral to the appropriate authorities, and notice to the platforms concerned. Nothing in this letter constitutes a waiver of any right or remedy, all of which are expressly reserved.

Note: name only remedies you would genuinely pursue and that the facts support. An empty threat of criminal prosecution is ineffective and is itself a source of exposure under Civil Code Articles 19 to 21.

7. Response. Please direct your written response to [name], [email address], [postal address], on or before [date]. This letter is sent without prejudice to any right, claim or remedy of our client.

Very truly yours,

[Signature]
[Printed name]
[Position, or “Counsel for [owner]” with Roll of Attorneys, IBP, PTR and MCLE details if signed by a lawyer]

Attachments: Annexes “A” to “[X]”

Served by: [personal service against receipt / registered mail, Registry Receipt No. ___ / courier, Tracking No. ___ / email dated ___]

Note on signature and service: no Philippine law requires a lawyer to sign a demand letter. A letter on counsel’s letterhead usually draws a faster and more serious response, and counsel can assess the strength of the claim before you commit to it in writing. The service line is not a legal requirement either, but recording how and when you served the letter is what allows you to prove notice later.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need a registered trademark before sending a cease-and-desist letter?

Not to send one, but you need one to assert infringement. Section 122 of RA 8293 provides that rights in a mark are acquired through registration, and Sections 147 and 155 speak of a registered mark. Without registration your demand must rest on unfair competition under Section 168, which protects the goodwill you have built, or on Section 165.2 trade name protection. Those claims are real but harder, because you must prove goodwill and deception rather than simply producing a certificate. See trademark infringement for the fuller comparison.

Does a lawyer have to sign the letter?

No. Philippine law prescribes no form, signatory or format for a private demand letter, and a business owner may sign one personally. The practical difference is substantial: a letter from counsel signals willingness to litigate, is more likely to reach the recipient’s own lawyer than a customer service inbox, and reflects a professional assessment of whether the claim holds. If your letter names remedies you may have to pursue, have it reviewed before it goes out.

Is mediation required, and does that change how I write?

Mediation is required once a case is filed with IPOPHL, not before. Memorandum Circular No. 008, s. 2018 refers administrative IP violation complaints, inter partes cases and several other categories to pre-litigation mediation, which runs sixty days from referral and may be extended by thirty. Because you will sit across from this party anyway, a letter that is firm but includes a realistic settlement path tends to work better than one that only issues threats.

How should I serve the letter, and does proof of service matter?

There is no prescribed method, so use several: personal delivery against a signed receipt, registered mail with registry receipt and return card, courier with proof of delivery, and email. Proof matters because it establishes when the recipient knew. Continued use after documented notice supports arguments about bad faith and damages, including the doubling of damages under Section 156 where actual intent to defraud is shown.

What if the recipient says they used the name first?

Take it seriously and ask for evidence. Section 159.1 protects a person who used the mark in good faith before the filing or priority date of your registration, subject to limits on transferring that right. If the claim is substantiated your position changes materially, and pressing an untenable demand can expose you to a damages claim under Civil Code Articles 19 to 21 as well as to a cancellation petition against your registration. The same analysis applies where someone has copied your logo rather than your word mark.

Official Sources

Disclaimer

Important: This article provides general educational information about Philippine law, regulation, cybersecurity, technology, or business compliance. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws, agency procedures, technical standards, platform rules, and the facts of each situation may change the result. Verify current requirements through the cited official sources and seek qualified professional advice when your rights, deadlines, money, safety, or legal exposure may be affected.

CyberCode updates

Get practical updates on Philippine technology law, data privacy, cybersecurity, and AI.

Email activity tracking

Unsubscribe any time. See our privacy policy below.