Co San v. Director of Patents, et al.

GR No. L-10563, February 23, 1961 | Bautista Angelo

Facts: Co San was acquitted of the crime of unfair competition by CA.
Jose Ong Lian Bio filed with Philippine Patents Office, and was granted 2 patent applications on 2 designs for luggages.
Co San filed petition for cancellation of letters of patent, which was dismissed by the Director of Patents without hearing
and reception of evidence because of his lack of statutory authority to consider the cancellation of design patents.
SC ordered the Director to hear the petition, but during the hearing, only documentary evidence was presented and Co
San relied heavily on CA ruling which acquitted him of the crime of unfair competition. Director dismissed the petition for
cancellation for insufficiency of evidence.
Issue: WoN Director of Patents is bound in the cancellation proceedings by the findings of the CA in the criminal case
against Co San
Held: No. The acquittal of Co San by CA was not based on the cancellation of a patent, but on the opinion that the
accused had not deceived or defrauded the complainant
Cancellation proceedings: question refers to the validity of the design patents issued to Jose Ong Lian Bio; Patent office
has jdxn
Criminal case: question is WoN Co San unfairly competed against the luggage of Jose Ong Lian Bio; CFI has jdxn
The fact that the evidence in the criminal prosecution was insufficient to show that the defendant was guilty of a crime
does not bar the right of the offended party to maintain a civil action for damages. (Worcester v. Ocampo).
A judgment of acquittal in a criminal action for fraudulent registration of a trademark in violation of Sec. 18 of Act No. 666,
cannot be invoked as res judicata in a civil action based on unfair and malicious competition on the ground that the facts
of the latter are different and have not been passed upon in the judgment rendered in the former case. (Ogura v. Chua
and Confesor)
Petition for review is dismissed with costs against petitioner-appellant