Thesis Outline Critique for X

Thesis Title:

General Comments
Some of the proponents statements are speculative and assume certain facts without proper
basis. An example is the statement: Nowadays, when someone mentions buying a laptop,
the automatic thought is Apple (Macbook)
The proponent did not provide any comparison between trademark and industrial design.
Can packaging be properly considered as an industrial design rather than trademark? Why
did the proponent consider packaging as trademark when it is not a mark but a 3D object?
How is the case of Pearl & Dean v. Shoemart applicable?
How about police power? Isnt it well within the police power of Congress to enact the
Plain Packaging Law?

Strength/s
The proponent started by explaining the importance of trademark to help the reader
understand the legal problem.
There is a legal problem but the proponent must further stress that the Plain Packaging Law
may cover other products aside from tobacco and tobacco products in the future, which
may violate trademark rights. The proponent only discussed this aspect in passing (one
paragraph only) which may be overlooked by the readers and thereafter cause confusion.
The issue of whether or not the Plain Packaging Law should be implemented in the
Philippines is within the proper discretion of Congress so this panel thinks that
the legal problem should be framed better.

Room for Improvement

The proponent can make improvements on the flow of Chapter 1. She enumerated certain
benefits of the Plain Packaging Law that, in the mind of the reader, may outweigh the
disadvantages of the law in relation to trademark rights. This panel recommends a more
balanced approach.
Since the issue at bar relates to the enactment of a law, the proponent failed to give an
overview of police power.
As mentioned by the proponent, companies are still allowed to use their name in the
package. Then in this panels view, the trademark rights of the tobacco companies are not
violated. The proponent needs to justify the relation between packaging, trademark, and
trade name.
The proponent failed to discuss why the scope of study is limited to the tobacco industry.
The SC in the case of Del Monte v. CA explained the ordinary buyer doctrine. How
does this affect the thesis?
In Philip Morris v. Fortune Tobacco, the SC made a pronouncement that cigarette
buyers are more picky, thus they are not considered as ordinary buyers who may be
easily deceived. The likelihood of confusion is less likely in the tobacco industry.
How then can the Plain Packaging Law affect market share considering this
observation by the Court?