Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PATENT CASE
BEA~ST
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 113388. September 5, 1997]
FOUNDRY MANUFACTURIN
CORPORATION, respondents.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
BEA~ST
FACTS:
Petitioner Angelita Manzano filed with the Phil. Patent Office
on Feb 19, 1982
BEA~ST
or used by others in the Phil. for more than one (1) year
before she filed her application for letters patent on
Dec 9, 1979;
that Ong helped in the casting of an LPG burner which was the
same utility model of a burner for which Letters Patent No.
UM-4609 was issued,
BEA~ST
and that after her husbands separation from the shop she
organized Besco Metal Manufacturing (BESCO METAL) for
the casting of LPG burners one of which had the configuration,
form and component parts similar to those being manufactured
by UNITED FOUNDRY.
BEA~ST
that the company manufactured early models of singlepiece types of burners where the mouth and throat were
not detachable;
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
burner device so that the prior art and patented device became
identical although in truth they were not,
- they could not serve as anticipatory bars for the reason that
they were undated.
BEA~ST
Petitioner submits
that the differences cited by the CA between the utility
model of private respondent and the models of Manila
Gas Corporation and Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., are
more imaginary than real.
BEA~ST
Petitioner thus asks this Court to take judicial notice of the fact
that Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., disappeared before 1979 and
reappeared only during the Martial Law years as Petrophil
Corporation.
BEA~ST
Further, Sec. 55 of the same law provides Sec. 55. Design patents and patents for utility models.
RULING:
We cannot sustain petitioner. Section 7 of RA No. 165, as
amended, which is the law on patents, expressly provides -
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
For anticipation to occur, the prior art must show that each
element is found
o either expressly
The dates when they were distributed to the public were not
indicated and, therefore, they are useless prior art references.
o or described or under principles of inherency in a single
xxxx
BEA~ST
before the application for the issuance of patent for the LPG
burner was filed by Melecia Madolaria.
xxxx
- would show that it does not bear the word Ransome which
is the burner referred to as the product being sold by the
Petitioner.
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.
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
Time and again we have held that it is not the function of the
SC to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence and
credibility of witnesses presented before the lower tribunal or
office.
BEA~ST
FACTS:
The May 22, 2001 decision of the CA contained a summary of
this dispute:
[3]
CORONA, J.:
[2]
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
In his reply dated Feb 17, 1986, Vergara protested the unilateral
action of SMI, saying it was without basis.
In the same letter, he pushed for the signing of the contract for
SM Cubao.
BEA~ST
In the light of its discoveries, Pearl and Dean sent a letter dated
Dec 11, 1991 to both SMI and NEMI enjoining them to cease
using the subject light boxes and to remove the same from
SMIs establishments.
Claiming that both SMI and NEMI failed to meet all its
demands,
Pearl and Dean filed this instant case for infringement of
trademark and copyright, unfair competition and damages.
BEA~ST
On this basis, SMI, aside from praying for the dismissal of the
case, also counterclaimed for moral, actual and exemplary
damages and for the cancellation of Pearl and Deans
Certification of Copyright Registration No. PD-R-2558 dated
January 20, 1981 and Certificate of Trademark Registration
No. 4165 dated September 12, 1988.
BEA~ST
(3) to deliver, under oath, to the National Library, all fillerposters using the trademark Poster Ads, for destruction; and
[4]
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
In this case it was held that protection of the drawing does not
extend to the unauthorized duplication of the object drawn
because copyright extends only to the description or expression
of the object and not to the object itself.
BEA~ST
The records show that on June 20, 1983, Pearl and Dean
applied for the registration of the trademark Poster Ads with
the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfer.
The SC further emphasized the restrictive meaning of Section
20 when it stated, through Justice Conrado V. Sanchez, that:
Said trademark was recorded in the Principal Register on Sept
12, 1988 under Registration No. 41165 covering the following
products: stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes and calling
cards and newsletters.
BEA~ST
Poster Ads was registered by Pearl and Dean for specific use in
its stationeries, in contrast to defendants-appellants who used
the same words in their advertising display units.
CA RULING:
We believe that such omnibus registration is not contemplated
by our Trademark Law.
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
ISSUES
ON THE ISSUE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
In resolving this very interesting case, we are challenged once
again to put into proper perspective four main concerns of
intellectual property law patents, copyrights, trademarks and
unfair competition arising from infringement of any of the first
three. We shall focus then on the following issues:
BEA~ST
RULING 1:
We agree with the appellate court.
[8]
BEA~ST
only to the technical drawings and not to the light box itself
because the latter was not at all in the category of prints,
pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags and box
wraps.
But this was not the case. SMIs and NEMIs acts complained of
by P & D were to have units similar or identical to the light box
illustrated in the technical drawings manufactured by Metro
and EYD Rainbow Advertising, for leasing out to different
advertisers. Was this an infringement of petitioners copyright
over the technical drawings? We do not think so.
[9]
What the law does not include, it excludes, and for the good
reason: the light box was not a literary or artistic piece which
could be copyrighted under the copyright law.
BEA~ST
[11]
BEA~ST
ANSWER:
[12]
BEA~ST
On one side of the coin is the public which will benefit from
new ideas; on the other are the inventors who must be
protected.
[16]
No patent, no protection.
[14]
[15]
BEA~ST
The inventor may keep his invention secret and reap its
fruits indefinitely. In consideration of its disclosure and
the consequent benefit to the community, the patent is
granted.
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
And, of course, in using the art, the ruled lines and headings of
accounts must necessarily be used as incident to it.
BEA~ST
[24]
[25]
BEA~ST
[27]
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
This is an appeal from the order of the CFI of Rizal dated AuG
22, 1966, in Civil Case No. C-712, dismissing,
-
FACTS:
On May 5, 1966, Parke, Davis & Company filed with the CFI
of Rizal, Caloocan City Branch, the said Complaint with
Preliminary Injunction
against Doctors' Pharmaceuticals, Inc., otherwise referred
to as defendant No. 1 and V-LAB Drughouse Corporation,
otherwise referred to as defendant No. 2,
that on March 21, 1957, Letters Patent No. 279 was legally
issued to plaintiff' by the Patent Office of the Republic of
the Philippines for an invention entitled "Therapeutically
Valuable Esters and Method for Obtaining the same";
BEA~ST
that since that date, plaintiff has been and still is, the owner
of said Letters Patent No. 279 which is still in force in the
Philippines;
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
plaintiff and/or that said product has been made under the
supervision or control of plaintiff thereby causing damage
or loss to plaintiff.
BEA~ST
the truth of the matter is that said product does not contains
said substance but the subtance covered by letters Patents
No.279, namely, "Chloramphenicol Palmitate".
BEA~ST
the motion to dismiss, and in view of the fact that the substance
covered by Letters Patent No. 50 and Letters Patent No. 279 is
the same and that is, the substance known as
"Chloramphenicol",
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
SO ORDERED.
Had the lower court applied the foregoing formula, it would
not have Dismissed, on the ground of failure to state a cause of
action, the complaint for damages for infringement of patent
and unfair competition.
Hence, the present appeal.
ISSUE:
We are thus tasked with the resolution of the issue of whether
or not the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint for
damages for infringement of patent and unfair competition on
the ground of failure to state a cause of action.
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
BEA~ST
BEA~ST