The Philippines has remained out of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) Special 301 Watch List for the 13th consecutive year, and has been cited for best practices in the protection of intellectual property rights, even as it also continued to challenge the USTR for its characterization of the country as a source of counterfeit medicines.
The 2026 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement, an annual report on state of IP rights protection of U.S. trading partners, released today, May 1, by the USTR recognized several Philippine initiatives as best practices.
For instance, the Philippines has been cited for creating a specialized unit e-Commerce Bureau under the Department of Trade and industry to support regulatory oversight of e-commerce transactions, which includes protecting against the sale of counterfeit goods online. The Bureau is also finalizing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) in 2026 to strengthen inter-agency collaboration in the digital space.
The Philippines was also cited among many trading partners that conducted IP awareness and educational campaigns, including jointly with stakeholders, to develop support for domestic IP initiatives. The USTR noted of the IPOPHL’s “Pirated Inferno” comic through its seminars and visits to local governments, higher education institutions, and non-government organizations.
IPOPHL, in partnership with the National Book Development Board, is working to translate the comic to other Philippine languages for wider reach.
In addition, IPOPHL’s National Judicial Colloquium on Intellectual Property Adjudication, which brought together judges from Special Commercial Courts, was recognized for strengthening judicial capacity and improving the handling of IP cases.
The report also cited the Philppines as among countries that have adopted laws and enforcement practices designed to prevent unauthorized camcording and urged other countries to emulate these countries.
Challenges
The USTR, however, mentioned a 2020 study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the EU Intellectual Property Office that found China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Vietnam are the leading sources of counterfeit medicines distributed globally.
The report stated that the manufacturing and distribution of pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical ingredients bearing counterfeit trademarks is a growing problem that has important consequences for consumer health and safety and is exacerbated by the rapid growth of illegitimate online sales. Counterfeiting, the report added, contributes to the proliferation of substandard, unsafe medicines that do not conform to established quality standards. The United States is particularly concerned with the proliferation of counterfeit pharmaceuticals that are manufactured, sold, and distributed by numerous trading partners.
Meanhile, the U.S. has also engaged the Philippines, among several countries, to address concerns resulting from the geographical indication policies. This is in response to the European Union’s aggressive promotion of its exclusionary GI policies. The United States continues its intensive engagement in promoting and protecting access to foreign markets for U.S. exporters of products that are identified by common names or otherwise marketed under previously registered trademarks.
As a result, the United States is advancing these objectives through its trade agreements, as well as in international fora, including in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, WIPO, and the WTO.
In these engagements, the U.S. aims to ensure that the grant of GI protection does not violate prior rights (for example, in cases in which a U.S. company has a trademark that includes a place name).
The USTR also wants to ensure that the grant of GI protection does not deprive interested parties of the ability to use common names, such as parmesan or feta.
The E.U GI policy should also ensure that interested persons have notice of, and opportunity to oppose or to seek cancellation of, any GI protection that is sought or granted.
In addition, the U.S. would like the E.U. GI policy ensures that notices issued when granting a GI consisting of multiple terms identify its common name components, and that opposing efforts to extend the protection given to GIs for wines and spirits to other products.
On trademarks protection, the report included the Philippines among many countries, including India, Malaysia, and Pakistan, for reportedly having slow opposition or cancellation proceedings.
IPOPHL reponse
In response to the latest USTR report, IPOPHL Director General Teodoro C. Pascua welcomed USTR’s continued recognition, emphasizing the critical role of inter-agency collaboration in sustaining the country’s gains.
“Our consistent standing reflects the strength of our whole-of-government approach, with the National Committee on Intellectual Property Rights (NCIPR) at its core. Through the NCIPR, enforcement agencies, regulators and partners are able to act in a more coordinated and strategic manner against counterfeiting and piracy,” said Pascua, also Vice-Chair of the NCIPR.
The NCIPR is an interagency body composed of 15 government offices involved in IP protection and enforcement. It coordinates nationwide efforts to combat counterfeiting and piracy, conducts joint enforcement operations and advances policy and capacity-building initiatives.
“This is a testament to the hard and smart work, dedication and commitment of the NCIPR in upholding IP rights protection and enforcement, and in safeguarding the welfare of Filipinos,” Deputy Director General Nathaniel S. Arevalo said.
“Having planted the seeds of whole-of-society approach, we will continue to build on these gains by strengthening enforcement coordination, enhancing digital monitoring capabilities and expanding our public awareness initiatives. We are positive that we are capable to meet the demands of an increasingly evolving environment in view of the advances in technology and commercial activities in the digital environment.”
In a statement, the IPOPHL continued to challenge the USTR’s characterization of the Philippines as a source of counterfeit medicines. It clarifies that the 2020 OECD study from which the label derives identifies the country as a “provenance economy,” which does not conclusively determine whether it is a source or transit point.
The IPOPHL and the NCIPR stressed that accurate and adequate information including identifying origins is key to addressing enforcement gaps.
On trade protection, IPOPHL cited ongoing efforts to reduce backlogs and improve efficiency, including promoting alternative dispute resolution which offer faster and more cost-effective options for parties.
It added that such proceedings are quasi-judicial and may be affected by factors beyond its control, such as repeated extension requests and non-appearance of parties or counsel.
“We take these observations as opportunities to further strengthen our systems. Our reforms are ongoing and include streamlining procedures, enhancing digital systems and strengthening coordination,” Bureau of Legal Affairs Director and IP Rights Enforcement Office Supervising Director Christine Pangilinan-Canlapan said.
“Our goal is not only to maintain our standing, but to ensure that our IP environment truly supports innovation, investment and consumer protection,” she added.
