Harassment is considered a crime penalized by law. Due to the rampant misinformation being done online through social media, the government of the Netherlands is doing its best to prevent the possible commission of crimes in this platform. An update of cyber law in the Netherlands is a measure against harassment through sharing of private information online which they call anti-doxing. For the perusal of the social media or online users in the Netherlands, this law will take effect on 1 January 2024.

What is this?

Based on the website of the Dutch government, the “anti-doxing law” is enacted to penalize the use of personal data to instill fear in other people which tantamount to harassment. Personal data such as addresses, telephone numbers, and information about family members are covered by this law.

The act of doxing which is going to be penalized by law means “obtaining, distributing or otherwise making available identifying personal data of another person or a third party with the aim of instilling fear in that other person, causing severe disturbances to that other person or seriously hindering that person in the performance of his or her duties or profession will be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of two years or a fine of up to EUR 22,500. The maximum jail term will be increased by one-third in the event of doxing against persons with a specific profession, such as mayors, politicians, judges, lawyers, journalists and police officers.”

In addition, “the victim can also initiate their own civil proceedings if it is known who posted the offending content online. Compensation and the online removal of the offending content can then be demanded. If the offender is not known, the intermediary hosting the content can always be notified. Intermediaries such as internet providers and online platforms have a role to act if they are aware that their platforms or servers are hosting infringing or unlawful content.”

MY OPINION AND QUESTIONS

For the protection of our privacy, this is wonderful. However, being a lawyer who is working in different jurisdictions, I have some questions. When do you say that the objective is instilling fear? What if the objective is only to verify the authenticity of a public document in a group and the person concerned has felt fear in the process? If a falsified public document has been shared in an App group and made known to a person and felt fear because of it, would that amount to harassment?

As a Filipino lawyer who personally experienced this kind of situation, as an officer of the court, it is my duty to inform the authority about the existence of a falsified public document which was executed and notarized in the Philippines. It is my duty to inform my group online when necessary as false notarized public document which looks legal and regular on its face, would result destruction of the credibility and reliability of notarized public documents in the Philippines. Severe damage will also result to the membership of the Philippines to Apostille Convention if such false notarized public document bears the Apostille seal/sticker.

The perpetrator of the falsified notarized public document would naturally feel fear in the process if she really did the act otherwise, she would have told me that the document is not true. Nonetheless, why should somebody whose intention is to prevent crime is accused of harassment and be ordered to take down the shared information or document?

I hope the authorities will be clear on the matter.

As regards the locus of a crime since this is an actionable wrong committed online, what is the basis if the document is shared abroad when they were there? What are the jurisdictional implications if the crime is committed abroad?

This law is very interesting. – Gay Ramos

Manila Hotel Corporation Vs. Office of the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and Le Comité Interprofessional Du Vin De Champagne G.R. No. 241034. August 3, 2022

Manila Hotel Corporation applied for the registration of its trademark CHAMPAGNE ROOM before the IPOPhil. Le Comite Interprofessional Du Vin De Champagne, CIVC for brevity opposed the application. The IPO Adjudication officer ruled in favor of Manila Hotel Corporation. The respondent CIVC received a copy of the decision on February 2, 2018 and filed a Motion for extension of Time to File Appeal to the IPO-BLA Director praying for an extension of 10 days from February 12, 2018 or until February 22, 2018 within which to file an appeal. The Respondent CIVC on Inter Partes Proceedings (Revised Inter Partes Rules) does not prohibit the filing of a motion for extension to file an appeal. Petitioner Manila Hotel Corporation filed an Opposition to respondent CIVC’s Motion asserting that the revised Inter Partes Rules do not provide for an extension of the period within which to appeal the decision of the IPO Adjudication Officer to the IPO-BLA Director. The IPO-BLA Director granted CIVC an extension of time to file its comment on the appeal within a non-extendible ten days.

The petitioner went to the Court of Appeals by virtue of Rule 65 questioning the extended period of time. The CA ruled in favor of the IPO-BLA’s decision. Hence, this case decided by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decided in favor of the decision of the IPO-BLA Director which granted an extension of time to file an appeal. To quote the decision:

” It is true that the right to appeal, being merely a statutory privilege, should be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. But it is equally true that in proceedings before administrative bodies, the general rule has always been liberality. Administrative rules of procedure should be construed liberally in order to promote their object to assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses.”

Republic Act No. 8923, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, is a law enacted pursuant to the State policy “to streamline administrative procedures of registering patents, trademarks, and to enhance the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the Philippines.

Pursuant to RA 8923, the Rules and Regulations on Inter Partes Proceedings was promulgated and governed the proceedings relating to opposition to trademark applications, petitions to cancel trademark registrations, petitions to cancel invention patents, utility model registrations, industrial designs registrations or claims, and appeals before the BLA and office of the Director General.

“Section 2(a) of Rule 9 would readily show that while the rules expressly state that the 10-day period for filing a comment to the appeal is non-extendible, there is no similar express prohibition on moving for an extension of time for filing an appeal. Similarly, the same rule is silent as to whether an extension of time for filing an appeal is allowed and merely states that the appeal shall be immediately denied if it is filed out of time and/or not accompanied by the payment of the applicable fee. Because the rules did not categorically and explicitly prohibit the filing of a motion for extension of time to file an appeal, the grant of such extension is not proscribed by law. Had the Inter Partes Rules intended to strictly prohibit and disallow the filing of such motion for extension, it would have expressly and unequivocally stated such prohibition, in the same manner that it had explicitly disallowed the extension of the 10-day period to file a comment to the appeal.”

“Children” refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.” Section 3 (a) Republic Act No. 7610  

The Supreme Court of the Philippines in the case San Juan v. People, January 17, 2023, G.R. No. 236628, held that the use of firearm is intrinsically cruel which inherently carries a malicious intent liable for violation of Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(1) of RA 7610 and not punishable by the crime of Grave Threat under the Revised Penal Code.

Under Republic Act No. 7610, the following are considered child abuse:

(b) “Child abuse” refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following:

(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;

(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;

(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or

(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death.

By virtue of R.A. No. 11956 known as An Act Further Amending Republic Act No. 11213, Otherwise known as the “Tax Amnesty Act”, as amended by Republic Act No. 11569, the period to avail of the estate tax amnesty is extended until June 14, 2025 and for other purposes.

Republic Act No. 11956 has lapsed into law on 5 August 2023 pursuant to Art. VI, Sec. 27(1) of the Constitution.

Estate Tax Amnesty covers the estate of the decedents who died on or before December 31, 2017. This does not mean that you do not need to pay estate tax at all. This only covers the payment of penalty for not paying estate tax within one year from the death of the decedents.

Catering, hospitality establishments, supermarkets and the like, starting July 1, 2023, are now banned in providing free plastic take-out cups and containers. This means that the consumers need to pay an amount on top of the price of the coffee or meal.

The guidelines are:

• € 0,25 for a cup
• € 0,50 for a meal that can consist of multiple containers
• € 0,05 for containers with single servings of vegetables, fruit, yoghurt, spreads, or sauce

Disposable cups and containers that are biodegradable such as papers and other “plastic-free” alternative remain allowed.

This is an awesome initiative by the Dutch government and I commend them for this bold step.

So, one way to save money is to bring your own re-usable cup even when it is made of plastic!

For additional information, visit https://ondernemersplein.kvk.nl/klanten-moeten-betalen-voor-plastic-bekers-en-bakjes-wegwerpplastic/.

#reusablecups #banplastic

Thank you #WIPO for this very fruitful opportunity. International application of intellectual properties such as trademark or patent is very useful in protecting and monitoring intellectual property rights. https://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/news/2021/news_0033.html

Artificial Intelligence is now gaining attention globally as it evolves in a manner that is amazing yet baffling and somewhat, a bit scary with all the movies that come with it.

Director Till from World Intellectual Property Organization, Division of Artificial Intelligence Policy has invited me to participate on the  WIPO’s public consultation on artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) policy I am honored of course and my science background specifically instrumentation engineering brings me back to where I was studying years back when we were doing computer programming as one of our subjects in Chemical Engineering at Saint Louis University.

Before, we were taught to make programs that could automatically compute data by using chemical equations so we can arrive at a given output through the use of Turbo C. I learned that by using right character combinations, we can arrive at an output that involves unimaginable amount of data in a very short period of time.

When I was taking my Masters in International Business Law at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, our professor in Trade and Investment Law, caught my attention when he told us that Artificial Intelligence in the form of robots could actually talk to each other. Then we talked about the impact of these robots to Trade and Investment but we only did that in a short period of time as we have other topics to discuss which made sense with all the problems in the world as regards trade and investment and the looming trade war between China and the US at that time. Now, I realize that maybe he wanted us to write about AI as our thesis but nobody got the hint including me.

How Artificial Intelligence Evolved

Artificial Intelligence was but myth, fiction and speculation in the 19th century and the great philosophers and mathematicians have studied and formulated logical and structured methods on how people think. Nonetheless, during those days, they were all but hypotheses and theories that need to be applied functionally through science. In the 20th century, there was a breakthrough through in Turing’s machine that captured effectively the essence of abstract manipulation that broke the massive codes during world war II. By then, they could prove that human’s thought and plans can be calculated and predicted through the use of machines.

In 1940’s and 50’s, scientists conceptualized the study of artificial intelligence and founded it in 1956. From then on, years after Darmouth conference, computers were solving mathematical problems and even learning English. Funding poured down subsequently.

Meanwhile, in 1967, Waseda University, Japan had developed a humanoid robot or android, the WABOT-1 which can walk with the lower limb, grip and transport objects with hands through the use of tactile sensors and external receptors and speak through an artificial mouth.

However, 1974-1980 was considered as AI winter due to financial setbacks.

In 1980, AI was once again revived through “expert systems”adopted by corporations and the extensive funding of Japanese government to their 5th generation computer. Expert systems relied on the expert knowledge that they contain.

“On 11 May 1997, Deep Blue became the first computer chess-playing system to beat a reigning world chess champion, Garry Kasparov.”

In 2005, a robot created at Stanford won the DARPA Grand Challenge when it drove autonomously for 131 miles long in an unknown desert trail.

And so on, to say the least.

MODERN ERA

As a practitioner coming from a developing country, I was not aware about the intricacies and advancement of AI until I came across data and big data management. This big data can be accessed, analyzed and synthesized by the AI’s which are made initially by brilliant people. The AI’s capacity depends on how intelligent the creator is.

Artificial Intelligence have been intertwined into our society a long time ago which we made more powerful by feeding a lot of information or data available online, after all the programs and industrial instrumentation that we, humans have created.

This now comes into mind the war of information gathered from big data and how credible they are. In business, data is also important if not essential. Business owners use data in all fields from the inception, operation and thriving or succeeding into this competitive world, just by the protection of #IntellectualProperty alone through trade secrets. AI’s, in some ways or another, can gather data from different platforms and media such as cameras, hidden or not, pictures, emails, news and others. AI,s can analyze information, synthesize and produce a product or an output.

Take for example the search engines and locator, through AI, authorities can pin point an individual’s exact location, activities and similar information. These, without our conscious knowledge, are being done by an AI.

OBSERVATION

No matter what, it is a fact and the truth that AI’s exist and they greatly affect our lives. We might delay the process of handling AI, head-on, through laws, rules, regulations, and directives but we cannot deny the fact that AI’s exist.

Now, in a lot of jurisdictions, the work of AI cannot be registered in IPO’s. However, how can we monitor and assess the advancement of these powerful tools, inventions, or creations if they cannot be registrable in any government office? How can we develop further, #share the good news, and make people be well aware of the dark world of AI?

Intellectual Property Law internationally is very dynamic as different countries have to update and cope up with the ever changing research and innovation on science and technology, synergism of different stakeholders, and the demand of the market.

As technology is changing and systems being upgraded, FiPa Legal Consulting would like to thank Kraków IP Law Summer School for this opportunity. – Gay C. Ramos

By virtue of Republic Act 11569, the Tax Amnesty Act of 2019 has been extended up to June 14, 2023. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1145527

The recently concluded webinar on Apostille opened the gates to a lot of learnings. Thanks a lot for the participants who are eager to know more about the legalization of documents. They have more questions and suggestions but we will see what will be the next topic that is more suited to the needs of the Filipinos who are living abroad in general.

Aside from Philippine Law, FiPa Legal Consulting is also specializing in the protection of Intellectual Property Rights, internationally and Apostille Convention has made the task of legal practitioners all over the world easier especially in the collection of evidence and documents.

On the last note, please don’t forget that even when Austria, Finland, Germany, and Greece are members of Apostille Convention, they do not recognize Apostille from the Philippines. China is also not a member but Macau and Hongkong have acceded to the Apostille Convention. For more information, please go to this link : https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/authorities1/?cid=41

Cheers!