Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
154491
SO ORDERED.9
In a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied on July
12, 2002, the petitioner stressed that the decision of the RTC
was contradictory because it absolved Judge Ocampo of
grave abuse of discretion in issuing the search warrant, but
at the same time nullified the issued warrant. The MTC
should have dismissed the petition when it found out that
Judge Ocampo did not commit any grave abuse of discretion.
Bypassing the Court of Appeals, the petitioner asks us
through this petition for review on certiorariunder Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court to reverse the decision of the RTC.
Essentially, the petition raises questions against the RTC's
nullification of the warrant when it found no grave abuse of
discretion committed by the issuing judge.
THE PETITION and
THE PARTIES' POSITIONS
In its petition, the petitioner insists the RTC should have
dismissed the respondents' petition for certiorari because it
found no grave abuse of discretion by the MTC in issuing the
search warrant. The petitioner further argues that the IP
Code was enacted into law to remedy various forms of unfair
competition accompanying globalization as well as to replace
the inutile provision of unfair competition under Article 189 of
the Revised Penal Code. Section 168.3(c) of the IP Code does
not limit the scope of protection on the particular acts
enumerated as it expands the meaning of unfair competition
to include "other acts contrary to good faith of a nature
calculated to discredit the goods, business or services of
another." The inherent element of unfair competition is fraud
or deceit, and that hoarding of large quantities of a
competitor's empty bottles is necessarily characterized by
bad faith. It claims that its Bicol bottling operation was
THIRD DIVISION
PEARL
&
DEAN
(PHIL.), INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. SHOEMA
RT,
INCORPORATED, and
NORTH
EDSA
MARKETING, INCORPORATED,respondents.
DECISION
CORONA, J.:
In the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Pearl & Dean (Phil.) Inc. (P
& D) assails the May 22, 2001 decision [1] of the Court of
Appeals reversing the October 31, 1996 decision [2] of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 133, in Civil Case No.
92-516 which declared private respondents Shoemart Inc.
(SMI) and North Edsa Marketing Inc. (NEMI) liable for
infringement of trademark and copyright, and unfair
competition.
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
The May 22, 2001 decision of the
Appeals[3] contained a summary of this dispute:
Court
of
plus
(e) costs of suit;
(2) to deliver, under oath, for impounding in the
National Library, all light boxes of SMI which
were fabricated by Metro Industrial Services and
EYD Rainbow Advertising Corporation;
(3) to deliver, under oath, to the National Library, all
filler-posters using the trademark Poster Ads, for
destruction; and
(4) to permanently refrain from infringing the
copyright on plaintiffs light boxes and its
trademark Poster Ads.
Defendants counterclaims are hereby ordered
dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[4]
On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the
trial court:
Since the light boxes cannot, by any stretch of the
imagination, be considered as either prints, pictorial
illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags or box wraps, to
be properly classified as a copyrightable class O work, we
have to agree with SMI when it posited that what was
copyrighted were the technical drawings only, and not the
light boxes themselves, thus:
42. When a drawing is technical and depicts a utilitarian
object, a copyright over the drawings like plaintiff-appellants
will not extend to the actual object. It has so been held under
jurisprudence, of which the leading case is Baker vs.
Selden (101 U.S. 841 (1879). In that case, Selden had
obtained a copyright protection for a book entitled Seldens
Condensed Ledger or Bookkeeping Simplified which
purported to explain a new system of bookkeeping. Included
ISSUES
In resolving this very interesting case, we are challenged
once again to put into proper perspective four main concerns
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
The primary purpose of the patent system is not the
reward of the individual but the advancement of the arts and
sciences. The function of a patent is to add to the sum of
useful knowledge and one of the purposes of the patent
system is to encourage dissemination of information
concerning discoveries and inventions. This is a matter which
is properly within the competence of the Patent Office the
official action of which has the presumption of correctness
and may not be interfered with in the absence of new
evidence carrying thorough conviction that the Office has
erred. Since the Patent Office is an expert body preeminently
qualified to determine questions of patentability, its findings
must be accepted if they are consistent with the evidence,
with doubts as to patentability resolved in favor of the Patent
Office.[1]
FIRST DIVISION
ANGELITA
MANZANO, petitioner,
vs.
COURT
OF
APPEALS, and MELECIA MADOLARIA, as Assignor
to NEW UNITED FOUNDRY MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION, respondents.
xxxx
Furthermore, and more significantly, the model marked Exh.
K does not show whether or not it was manufactured and/or
cast before the application for the issuance of patent for the
LPG burner was filed by Melecia Madolaria.
With respect to Exh. L, petitioner claimed it to be her own
model of LPG burner allegedly manufactured sometime in
1974 or 1975 and sold by her in the course of her business
operation in the name of Besco Metal Manufacturing, which
burner was denominated as Ransome burner
xxxx
But a careful examination of Exh. L would show that it does
not bear the word Ransome which is the burner referred to as
the product being sold by the Petitioner. This is not the way
to prove that Exh. L anticipates Letters Patent No. UM-4609
through Exhs. C and D. Another factor working against the
Petitioners claims is that an examination of Exh. L would
disclose that there is no indication of the time or date it was
manufactured. This Office, thus has no way of determining
whether Exh. L was really manufactured before the filing of
the aforesaid application which matured into Letters Patent
No. UM-4609, subject matter of the cancellation proceeding.
At this juncture, it is worthwhile to point out that petitioner
also presented Exh. M which is the alleged burner cup of an
imported Ransome burner. Again, this Office finds the same
as unreliable evidence to show anticipation. It observed that
there is no date indicated therein as to when it was
SECOND DIVISION
CRESER
PRECISION
SYSTEMS,
INC., petitioner,
vs. COURT
OF
APPEALS
AND
FLORO
INTERNATIONAL CORP., respondents.
DECISION
MARTINEZ, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari assails the
decision[1]. The decision of the Court of Appeals was penned
by Justice Gloria C. Paras and concurred in by Justice Salome
A. Montoya and Justice Hector L. Hofilea.
1 of the Court of Appeals dated November 9, 1994 in
C.A.-G.R. SP. No. 34425 entitled Floro International Corp. vs.
Hon. Tirso D.C Cruz and Creser Precision System, Inc., the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS HEREBY GRANTED. THE
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES, CIVIL CASE NO.
93-1856 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT JUDGE IS HEREBY
ORDERED DISMISSED AND HIS ORDERS THEREIN OF
DECEMBER 29, 1993 AND MAY 11, 1994 ARE ORDERED SET
ASIDE.
Private respondent is a domestic corporation engaged in
the manufacture, production, distribution and sale of military
armaments, munitions, airmunitions and other similar
materials.[2]
On January 23, 1990, private respondent was granted by
the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer
(BPTTT), a Letters Patent No. UM-6938 [3] covering an aerial
patent, such absence does not bar the first true and actual
inventor of the patented invention from suing another who
was granted a patent in a suit for declaratory or injunctive
relief recognized under American patent laws. This remedy,
petitioner points out, may be likened to a civil action for
infringement under Section 42 of the Philippine Patent Law.
We find the above arguments untenable.
Section 42 of R.A. 165, otherwise known as the Patent
Law, explicitly provides:
SECTION. 42. Civil action for infringement. Any patentee, or
anyone possessing any right, title or interest in and to the
patented invention, whose rights have been infringed, may
bring a civil action before the proper Court of First Instance
(now Regional Trial court), to recover from the infringer
damages sustained by reason of the infringement and to
secure an injunction for the protection of his right. x x x
Under the aforequoted law, only the patentee or his
successors-in-interest may file an action for infringement.
The phrase anyone possessing any right, title or interest in
and to the patented invention upon which petitioner
maintains its present suit, refers only to the patentees
successors-in-interest, assignees or grantees since actions
for infringement of patent may be brought in the name of the
person or persons interested, whether as patentee, assignees
or grantees, of the exclusive right.[12] Moreover, there can be
no infringement of a patent until a patent has been issued,
since whatever right one has to the invention covered by the
patent arises alone from the grant of patent. [13] In short, a
person or entity who has not been granted letters patent
over an invention and has not acquired any right or title
thereto either as assignee or as licensee, has no cause of
action for infringement because the right to maintain an
infringement suit depends on the existence of the patent. [14]
Petitioner admits it has no patent over its aerial fuze.
Therefore, it has no legal basis or cause of action to institute
the petition for injunction and damages arising from the
alleged infringement by private respondent. While petitioner
claims to be the first inventor of the aerial fuze, still it has no