PSE Circular for Brokers No. 2493-99

October 4, 1999 PSE CIRCULAR FOR BROKERS NO. 2493-99 Press Release: October 1, 1999 Reference: H.A. Lavides Media Services Division Tel. 810-31-90 PLDT has filed suit with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City against the Philippine League for Democratic Telecommunications and one of its incorporators and trustees, Gerardo Kaimo, for the unlawful use of PLDT's trade name and unfair competition In Civil Case No. Q99-388Q0, PLDT petitioned the Court for an ex parte temporary restraining order as well as damages versus the defendants. PLDT filed the suit after the defendants registered under their name the "PLDT com" domain name in the Internet. "This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It is an unlawful appropriation and use of the PLDT trade name and a legitimate defense of a 71- year old company's good name," PLDT executive vice president Antonio R Samson said. PLDT told the court that defendants' appropriation and use of PLDT's trade name and acronym is illegal under Republic Act No. 8293 (1998), otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. As a result of the unlawful use of its trade name, PLDT said Internet users who would be Interested in finding information about PLDT, have instead been lured to defendants' web site, only to find articles, illustrations and graphics derogatory to PLDT. By this artifice, the defendants have succeeded in using the mark and name "PLDT" as a convenient tool to destroy the plaintiffs own reputation and goodwill among consumers and potential investors. cdlex "The defendants' above-described unauthorized appropriation and . registration of "PLDT com" as a domain name and their wrongful acts in connection with its use in their (web) site constitute unlawful use of trade name which is likely to mislead the public under . . . relevant provisions of Republic Act No. 8293 (1998), otherwise known as the "Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines," PLDT said. PLDT pointed out as well that the defendants not only misappropriated and used its mark and name "PLDT" as a domain name without authority, but they obviously did so for the specific, malicious purpose of misleading and luring unsuspecting Internet users into their site to view their articles, features, and illustrations which are derogatory to, and tend to discredit, the plaintiff, its business and services among consumers and potential investors. Contrary to allegations, PLDT stressed that its suit is directed against the unlawful use of its trade name under the Intellectual Property Code and not a suppression of the Constitutional right of free speech. LexLib PLDT added that through defendants' actions, PLDT's own name is quite literally being misused against it to ruin its reputation and business. "The defendants' misappropriation, unauthorized registration of "PLDT com" and its use in association with their articles, features and illustrations posted on their Site are acts contrary to good faith of a nature calculated to discredit the goods, business or services of the plaintiff, and constitute unfair competition under . . . relevant provisions of RA No. 8293." PLDT told the court.