P. 1
Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property

|Views: 39|Likes:
Published by Chelsea Tade
Case Digests in Intellectual Property
Case Studies
Case Digests in Intellectual Property
Case Studies

More info:

Categories:Types, School Work
Published by: Chelsea Tade on Feb 01, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/07/2014

pdf

text

original

[G.R. No. 118708. February 2, 1998] CRESER PRECISION SYSTEMS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND FLORO INTERNATIONAL CORP.

, respondents. MARTINEZ, J.: This petition for review on certiorari assails the decision . 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. Hofileña. 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, [2] distribution and sale of military armaments, munitions, airmunitions and other similar materials. On January 23, 1990, private respondent was granted by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks [3] and Technology Transfer (BPTTT), a Letters Patent No. UM-6938 covering an aerial fuze which was published in the September-October 1990, Vol. III, No. 5 issue of the Bureau of Patent’s Official [4] Gazette. Sometime in November 1993, private respondent, through its president, Mr. Gregory Floro, Jr., discovered that petitioner submitted samples of its patented aerial fuze to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) for testing. He learned that petitioner was claiming the aforesaid aerial fuze as its own and planning to bid and manufacture the same commercially without license or authority from [5] private respondent. To protect its right, private respondent on December 3, 1993, sent a letter to petitioner advising it fro its existing patent and its rights thereunder, warning petitioner of a possible court action and/or application for injunction, should it proceed with the scheduled testing by the military on December 7, 1993. In response to private respondent’s demand, petitioner filed on December 8, 1993 a [6] complaint for injunction and damages arising from the alleged infringement before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 88. The complaint alleged, among others: that petitioner is the first, true and actual inventor of an aerial fuze denominated as “Fuze, PDR 77 CB4” which is developed as early as December 1981 under the Self-Reliance Defense Posture Program (SRDP) of the AFP; that sometime in 1986, petitioner began supplying the AFP with the said aerial fuze; that private respondent’s aerial fuze is identical in every respect to the petitioner’s fuze; and that the only difference between the two fuzes are miniscule and merely cosmetic in nature. Petitioner prayed that a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining private respondent including any and all persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, marketing and/or profiting therefrom, and/or from performing any other act in connection therewith or tending to prejudice and deprive it of any rights, privileges and benefits to which it is duly entitled as the first, true and actual inventor of the aerial fuze. On December 10, 1993, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order. Thereafter, hearings were held on the application of petitioner for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
[1]

injunction, with both parties presenting their evidence. After the hearings, the trial court directed the parties to submit their respective memoranda in support of their positions. On December 27, 1993, private respondent submitted its memorandum alleging that petitioner has no cause of action to file a complaint of infringement against it since it has no patent for the aerial fuze which it claims to have invented; that petitioner’s available remedy is to file a petition for cancellation of patent before the Bureau of Patents; that private respondent as the patent holder cannot be stripped of its property right over the patented aerial fuze consisting of the exclusive right to manufacture, use and sell the same and that it stands to suffer irreparable damage and injury if it is enjoined from the exercise of its property right over its patent. On December 29, 1993, the trial court issued an Order granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against private respondent the dispositive portion of which reads: “WHEREFORE, plaintiff’s application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is granted and, upon posting of the corresponding bond by plaintiff in the amount of PHP 200,000.00, let the writ of preliminary injunction be issued by the branch Clerk of this Court enjoining the defendant and any and all persons acting on its behalf or by and under its authority, from manufacturing, marketing and/or selling aerial fuzes identical, to those of plaintiff, and from profiting therefrom, and/or from performing any other act in connection therewith until further orders from this Court.” Private respondent moved for reconsideration but this was denied by the trial courts in its [9] Order of May 11, 1994, pertinent portions of which read: “For resolution before this Court is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the defendant and the plaintiff’s Opposition thereto. The Court finds no sufficient cause to reconsider its order dated December 29, 1993. During the hearing for the issuance of the preliminary injunction, the plaintiff has amply proven its entitlement to the relief prayed for. It is undisputed that the plaintiff has developed its aerial fuze way back in 1981 while the defendant began manufacturing the same only in 1987. Thus, it is only logical to conclude that it was the plaintiff’s aerial fuze that was copied or imitated which gives the plaintiff the right to have the defendant enjoined “from manufacturing, marketing and/or selling aerial fuzes identical to those of the plaintiff, and from profiting therefrom and/or performing any other act in connection therewith until further orders from this Court.” With regards to the defendant’s assertion that an action for infringement may only be brought by “anyone possessing right, title or interest to the patented invention,” (Section 42, RA 165) qualified by Section 10, RA 165 to include only “the first true and actual inventor, his heirs, legal representatives to assignees,” this court finds the foregoing to be untenable. Sec. 10 merely enumerates the persons who may have an invention patented which does not necessarily limit to these persons the right to institute an action for infringement. Defendant further contends that the order in issue is disruptive of the status quo. On the contrary, the order issued by the Court in effect maintained the status quo. The last actual , peaceable uncontested status existing prior to this controversy was the plaintiff manufacturing and selling its own aerial fuzes PDR 77 CB4 which was ordered stopped through the defendant’s letter. With issuance of the order, the operations of the plaintiff continue. Lastly, this court believes that the defendant will not suffer irreparable injury by virtue of said order. The defendant’s claim is primarily hinged on its patent (Letters Patent No. UM6983) the validity of which is being questioned in this case. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.”
[8] [7]

there can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has been issued. . Thus. On November 9. Civil action for infringement. have. petition. assignees or grantees since actions for infringement of patent may be brought in the we stated that: “The validity of the patent issued by the Philippine Patent Office in favor of the private respondent and the question over the investments. Said person. title or interest in and to the patented invention” upon which petitioner maintains its present suit. As a patentee. 1994. 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. by the issuance of the patent in question. the world is free to copy and use it with impunity. refers only to the patentee’s successorsin-interest. accepted the thinness of the private respondent’s new tiles as a discovery. d. may be likened to a civil action for infringement under Section 42 of the Philippine Patent Law. of the [12] exclusive right. under Section 42 of the Patent Law (R. Section 42 of R. Further. the latter not having any patent for the aerial fuze which it claims to have invented and developed and allegedly infringed by private respondent. Therefore. file a petition for cancellation of the patent within three (3) years from the publication of said patent with the Director of Patents and raise as ground therefor that the person to whom the patent was issued is not the true and actual inventor. 165). in the absence of error or abuse of power or lack or jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. use and vend his own invention. It advances the theory that while the absence of a patent may prevent one from lawfully suing another for infringement of said patent. to recover from the infringer damages sustained by reason of the infringement and to secure an injunction for the protection of his right. title or interest in and to the patented invention. The motion for reconsideration was also denied on January 17. WHEREFORE. but if he voluntarily discloses it. 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. 6938 issued to it on January 23. explicitly provides: SECTION. has no cause of action for infringement because the right to maintain an infringement suit depends on the [14] existence of the patent.A. petitioner points out. whose rights have been infringed. He can. assignees or grantees. c. it being disruptive of the status quo. 1995. it has in its favor not only the presumption of validity of its patent. This remedy. The trial court acted in grave abuse of discretion and or in excess of jurisdiction in finding that petitioner has fully established its clear title or right to preliminary injunction. The reason for this is that the said remedy is available only to the patent holder or his successors-in-interest. e. the proper venue is the Office of the Director of Patents. He has the right to make. since whatever right one has to the invention covered by the patent arises alone from the [13] grant of patent. Moreover. may bring a civil action before the proper Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial court). No pronouncement as to costs. Hence. however. [15] using or selling the invention. x x x Under the aforequoted law. 1994. Petitioner however failed to do so. title or interest in and to the patented invention. The case being an action for cancellation or invalidation of private respondent’s Letters Patent over its own aerial fuze. The phrase “anyone possessing any right. 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. Under American jurisprudence. the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. we sustain the assailed decision of the respondent Court of Appeal. Petitioner admits it has no patent over its aerial fuze. novelty and usefulness of the improved process therein specified and described are matters which are better determined by the Philippines patent Office. 165. mandamus and [10] prohibition before respondent Court of Appeals raising as grounds the following: a. Petitioner has no cause of action for infringement against private respondent. otherwise known as the Patent Law. While petitioner claims to be the first inventor of the aerial fuze. – Any patentee. We find the above arguments untenable. it can not now assail or impugn the validity of the private respondent’s letters patent by claiming that it is the true and actual inventor of the aerial fuze. 1990 by the Bureau of Patents. only the patentee or his successors-in-interest may file an action for infringement.A. Thus. petitioner’s remedy is not to file an action for injunction or infringement but to file a petition for cancellation of private respondent’ patent. this present It is petitioner’s contention that it can file. or anyone possessing any right. As such. as correctly ruled by the respondent Court of Appeals in its assailed decision: “since the petitioner (private respondent herein) is the patentee of the disputed invention embraced by letters of patent UM No. but that of a legal and factual first and true inventor of the invention. name of the person or persons interested. filed a petition for certiorari.Aggrieved. and The trial court acted in grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of jurisdiction in granting the preliminary injunction thereby depriving private respondent of its property rights over the patented aerial fuze and cause it irreparable damages. whether as patentee.” In fine. however. composed of experts in their field. the remedy of declaratory judgment or injunctive suit on patent invalidity relied upon by petitioner cannot be likened to the civil action for infringement under Section 42 of the Patent Law. A patent. There is a presumption that the Philippine Patent Office has correctly determined the patentability of the improvement by the private respondent of the process in question. anyone who has no patent over an invention but claims to have a right or interest thereto can not file an action for declaratory judgment or injunctive suit which is not recognized in this jurisdiction. such as by offering it for sale. [16] b. De Leon. and inventor has no common-law right to a monopoly of his invention. [11] Hence. still it has no right of property over the same upon which it can maintain a suit unless it obtains a patent therefor. under Section 28 of the aforementioned law. The trial court acted in grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of jurisdiction in granting the preliminary injunction. an action for infringement not as a patentee but as an entity in possession of a right. gives the inventor the right to exclude all others. 1993 and dismissing the complaint filed by petitioner. In short. he has the exclusive right of making. 42. private respondent on June 27. is not left without any remedy.” In the case of Aguas vs. the respondent court rendered the now assailed decision reversing the trial court’s Order of December 29.

were imported directly from abroad and not purchased through the local SmithKline.) [2] capsules. the disregard of which can give rise to a cause of action in the courts. PAMPANGA.” Through its Resolution dated 15 October 2001. Where the act consists of making or using exclusively for experimental use of . Guagua. THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF PAMPANGA. Their classification as “counterfeit” is based solely on the fact that they were imported from abroad and not purchased from the Philippine-registered owner of the patent or trademark of the drugs. Section 7 of Rep. Pampanga. Angeles City. Act No. a duly registered corporation which is the local distributor of pharmaceutical products manufactured by its parent London-based corporation. the process of which is governed under Part III of the Intellectual Property Code. Hence. However. and the assertion is made that there is no clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution presented by the SLCD. arguing that both Section 15. On the constitutional issue.” Glaxo Smithkline further claims that the SLCD does not in fact conflict with the aforementioned constitutional provisions and in fact are in accord with constitutional precepts in favor of the people’s right to health. The Office of the Solicitor General casts the question as one of policy wisdom of the law that is. the authorized Philippine distributor of these products. The NBI subsequently filed a complaint against Rodriguez for violation of Section 4 (in relation to Sections 3 and 5) of Republic Act No. also known [6] as the “Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008”. there is no doubt that the subject seized drugs are identical in content with their Philippine-registered counterparts. The two other provisions are Section 11. 9502 amends Section 72 of the Intellectual Property Code in that the later law unequivocally grants third persons the right to import drugs or medicines whose patent were registered in the Philippines by the owner of the product: Sec. “72. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Celerina C. Article XIII.3. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF GUAGUA. The raiding team seized several imported medicines. and the BFAD. Branch 57.) tablets. includes “an unregistered imported drug product.” and Section 15. which were manufactured by SmithKline. without his authorization. That the right to import the drugs and medicines contemplated in this section shall be available to any government agency or any private third party. 149907 April 16. or with his express consent. It appears that Roma Drug is one of six drug stores which were raided on or around the same time upon the request of SmithKline Beecham Research Limited (SmithKline). the latter in behalf of public respondents RTC. Rodriguez asserts that the challenged provisions contravene three provisions of the Constitution. importers or distributors. the limitation on patent rights shall apply after a drug or medicine has been introduced in the Philippines or anywhere else in the world by the patent owner. the presumption of constitutionality of statutes is invoked. Orbenin(500mg. Section 72 of Republic Act No. The local SmithKline has since merged with Glaxo Wellcome Phil. BUREAU OF FOOD & DRUGS (BFAD) and GLAXO SMITHKLINE. – The owner of a patent has no right to prevent third parties from performing. II. Using a patented product which has been put on the market in the Philippines by the owner of the product. Glaxo Smithkline asserts the rule that the SLCD is presumed constitutional. The seized medicines. vs. 9502.1. the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the RTC from proceeding with the trial against Rodriguez. Where the act is done privately and on a non-commercial scale or for a noncommercial purpose: Provided.R. the NBI and [4] Glaxo Smithkline from prosecuting the petitioners. Provincial Prosecutor and Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD). That. In this case. 2009 ROMA DRUG and ROMEO RODRIGUEZ. Amoxil (250mg. 8203. No.” It adds that Section 11. 72. Article II and Section 11. Trademark and Technology Transfer of a trademark. [5] beyond the interference of the judiciary. The section prohibits the sale of counterfeit drugs.) capsules and Ampiclox (500mg. the acts referred to in Section 71 hereof in the following circumstances: “72. The recommendation was approved by Provincial Prosecutor Jesus Y. which states that it is the policy of the State “to protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. 8293. otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Article II. Inc to form Glaxo SmithKline. The first is the equal protection clause of the Bill of Rights.G. Pineda skirted the challenge and issued a Resolution dated 17 August 2001 recommending that Rodriguez be charged with violation of Section 4(a) of the SLCD. and that Sections 3(b)(3). In gist. Respondents. Rodriguez challenged the constitutionality of the SLCD. Article XIII in particular cannot be work “to the oppression and unlawful of the property rights of the legitimate manufacturers. 4 and 5 of the SLCD be declared unconstitutional. The constitutional aspect of this petition raises obviously interesting questions. 7. which mandates that the State make “essential goods. further. During preliminary investigation. That it does not significantly prejudice the economic interests of the owner of the patent. with regard to drugs and medicines. However. private respondent in this case. Petitioners. There is no claim that they were adulterated in any way or mislabeled at least. including Augmentin (375mg. also known as the Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs (SLCD). Limitations of Patent Rights. The raid was conducted pursuant to a search [1] warrant issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). who take pains in having imported drug products registered before the BFAD. Glaxo Smithkline and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) have opposed the petition. health and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost. a team composed of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) operatives and inspectors of the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) conducted a raid on petitioner Roma Drug. such questions have in fact been mooted with the passage in 2008 of Republic Act No. Article XIII “are not selfexecuting provisions. Pampanga. “72.2. with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in San Fernando. is hereby amended to read as follows: “Sec.). or by any party authorized to use the invention: Provided. On 14 August 2000. insofar as such use is performed after that product has been so put on the said market: Provided. Again.” The term “unregistered” signifies the lack of registration with the Bureau of Patent. Manarang [3] approved the recommendation. aduly registered sole proprietorship of petitioner Romeo Rodriguez (Rodriguez) operating a drug store located at San Matias. as Proprietor of ROMA DRUG. which under Section 3(b)(3). tradename or other identification mark of a drug in the name of a natural or juridical person. the present Petition for Prohibition questing the RTC-Guagua Pampanga and the Provincial Prosecutor to desist from further prosecuting Rodriguez.

solely for purposes reasonably related to the development and submission of information and issuance of approvals by government regulatory agencies required under any law of the Philippines or of another country that regulates the manufacture. they are disabled from invoking the bare “personal use” exemption afforded by the SLCD. The Temporary Restraining Order dated 15 October 2001 is hereby made PERMANENT. Irreconcilable inconsistency between two laws embracing the same subject may exist when the later law nullifies the reason or purpose of the earlier act. “72. further. siblings. Act No. When a subsequent enactment covering a field of operation coterminus with a prior statute cannot by any reasonable construction be given effect while the prior law remains in operative existence because of irreconcilable conflict between the two acts. making or selling the invention including any data related thereto.1) The drugs and medicines are deemed introduced when they have been sold or offered for sale anywhere else in the world. against poor Filipinos without means to travel abroad to purchase less expensive medicines in favor of their wealthier brethren able to do so. soulless legislative piece. or by any party authorized to use the invention: Provided. Act No. so that the latter loses all [11] meaning and function. at civil costs. such as Rep.the invention for scientific purposes or educational purposes and such other activities directly related to such scientific or educational experimental use. That the right to import the drugs and medicines contemplated in this section shall be available to any government agency or any private third party. using. further. the latest legislative expression prevails and the prior law yields to the extent of the [10] conflict.” and of corresponding criminal penalties therefore are irreconcilably in the imposition conflict with Rep. It is laudable that with the passage of Rep. the prosecution of petitioner is no longer warranted and the quested writ of prohibition should accordingly be issued. construction. the Intellectual Property Office. and otherlike-minded groups who necessarily bring their own pharmaceutical drugs when they embark on their missions of mercy. even if the medicine can spell life or death for someone in thePhilippines. Act No. clearly reveals an intention on the part of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the subject that . That. 8203.4. III. insofar as such use is performed after that product has been so put on the said market: Provided. where the act includes testing. (72.3 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). Using a patented product which has been put on the market in the Philippines by the owner of the product. with the malevolents who would alter or counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs for reasons of profit at the expense of public safety. in consultation with the appropriate government agencies. However. the International Red Crescent. The absurd results from this far-reaching ban extends to implications that deny the basic decencies of humanity. 9502. many of whom motivated to do so out of altruism or basic human love. 9502 since the latter indubitably grants private third persons the unqualified right to import or otherwise use such drugs. of a medicine in accordance with a medical shall apply after a drug or medicine has been introduced in the Philippines or anywhere else in the world by the patent owner. it is clear that the SLCO’s classification of “unregistered imported drugs” as “counterfeit drugs. the law makes a criminal of any person who imports an unregistered drug regardless of the purpose. it deprives Filipinos to choose a less expensive regime for their health care by denying them a plausible and safe means of purchasing medicines at a cheaper cost. the importation of unregistered drugs.5. 9502” promulgated on 4 November 2008. at the expense of health. The owner of a patent has no right to prevent third parties from performing. As written. [9] It may be that Rep. After all. Where the act consists of the preparation for individual cases. or by any party authorized to use the invention: Provided. or with his express consent. The challenged provisions of the SLCD apparently proscribe a range of constitutionally permissible behavior. the State has reversed course and allowed for a sensible and compassionate approach with respect to the importation of pharmaceutical drugs urgently necessary for the people’s constitutionally-recognized right to health. “72. A writ of prohibition is hereby ISSUED commanding respondents from prosecuting petitioner Romeo Rodriguez for violation of Section 4 or Rep. That. with regard to drugs and medicines. [7] xxx The unqualified right of private third parties such as petitioner to import or possess “unregistered imported drugs” in the Philippines is further confirmed by the “Implementing Rules to [8] Republic Act No. Even worse is the fact that the law is not content with simply banning. Act No. That the right to import the drugs and medicines contemplated in this section shall be available to any government agency or any private third party. It discriminates. (n) intention must be given effect. without his authorization. beyond the reach of a patient who urgently depends on it. Limitations on Patent Rights. Note that the SLCD is a special law. Less urgently perhaps. No pronouncements as to costs. and the traditional treatment of penal provisions of special laws is that of malum prohibitum–or punishable regardless of motive or criminal intent. the SLCD has revealed itself as a heartless. The law would make criminals of doctors from abroad on medical missions of such humanitarian organizations such as the International Red Cross. parents to import the drug in behalf of their loved ones too physically ill to travel and avail of the meager personal use exemption allotted by the law. Act No. Legis posteriors priores contrarias abrogant. the limitation on patent rights shall apply after a drug or medicine has been introduced in the Philippines or anywhere else in the world by the patent owner. Medicin Sans Frontieres. It does not allow husbands. the petition is GRANTED in part. but still within the range of constitutionally protected behavior. In the case of drugs and medicines. children. For the reasons above-stated. For a law that is intended to help save lives. shall issue the appropriate rules and regulations necessary therein not later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the enactment of this law. It does not accommodate the situation where the drug is out of stock in the Philippines. in order to protect the data submitted by the original patent holder from unfair commercial use provided in Article 39. use or sale of any product: Provided. wives. 9502. the acts referred to in Section 71 of the IP Code as enumerated hereunder: (i) Introduction in the Philippines or Anywhere Else in the World. WHEREFORE. in a pharmacy or by a medical professional. SO ORDERED. It equates the importers of such drugs. it is apparent that it would have at least placed in doubt the validity of the provisions. Had the Court proceeded to directly confront the constitutionality of the assailed provisions of the SLCD. The relevant provisions thereof read: Rule 9. Where a statute of later date. 9502 did not expressly repeal any provision of the SLCD.

the same counsel filed a duly authenticated power of attorney executed by the petitioner on November 12. It should be noted that the petitioner does not deny. 1974 PITTSBURG PLATE GLASS COMPANY. It is a relationship the creation of which courts and administrative tribunals cannot but recognize on the faith of the client's word. On October 14. The extension was granted. dismissing the opposition of the Pittsburg Plate Glass Company (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) to the registration of a trademark applied for by Chua TuaHian Company (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). Picazo and Agcaoili was authorized to represent the petitioner before the Philippine Patent Office on November 5. 1962 an unverified notice of opposition to the trademark application was filed by Lichauco. ACCORDINGLY. Teehankee. Picazo and Agcaoili filed with the Philippine Patent Office a petition for extension of 30 days from November 8. the said counsel was not yet authorized by the petitioner to file the said pleading as the aforementioned power of 3 attorney was executed only on November 12. et al. Makalintal. The motion was. was duly authorized. 1962. 1962.J. Parry. asking that the respondent's 1 application be opposed. vs. 1963 and April 29. seasonably informed the Director of Patents that its counsel had the authority to represent it before the latter's office. JJ.R. The main issue before this Court is whether the law firm of Lichauco. to handle all foreign trademark matters affecting the petitioner. respondents.G. On November 5. a correspondent of Lichauco. 1962 when the petitioner's counsel asked for an extension of time to file a notice of opposition. as the latter has been entrusted the task of handling foreign trademark matters involving the petitioner. concur. et al. USA. pursuant to Rule 187(c) of the Rules of Practice before the Patent Office which authorizes the filing of such a notice provided it is verified by the opposer within 60 2 days thereafter. 1963 the petitioner's verified opposition to the respondent's application was filed. and the Director of Patents is hereby directed to proceed with the determination of the application and the opposition thereto with costs against Chua TuaHian& Company. It bears emphasis that the relationship between counsel and client is strictly a personal one. On December 7. 1962 when the former pleaded for an extension of time to register the petitioner's opposition to the respondent's application. attaching thereto an affidavit of the petitioner which states that the cablegram from Langner. Picazo and Agcaoili. C. denied in a resolution dated April 29. On February 5. which claims to be adversely affected by the respondent's trademark application. acting upon a motion of the respondent. issued a resolution dismissing the petitioner's opposition on the ground that on November 5. The plea was made pursuant to a cablegram from Langner. 1964 are set aside. We see no valid reason to interpose chevaux-de frise upon that claim and deny the petitioner its basic right to be heard. A copy of the cablegram was attached to the request.:p Before us is a petition for review of two resolutions of the Director of Patents in Inter Partes Case 283. 1962 in favor of the former for the prosecution of its opposition. . It is our considered view that the said law firm was so properly authorized by the petitioner.". CASTRO. Card and Langner International Patent and Trademark Agents. 1964. the questioned resolutions of the Director of Patents of October 14. Makasiar. J. THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS and CHUA TUA HIAN AND COMPANY. petitioner. the petitioner. Picazo and Agcaoili. 1963 the petitioner's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of the Director's resolution. the law firm of Lichauco. 1962 within which to file in behalf of the petitioner a notice of opposition to the respondent's application for registration of "SolexBluepane" as trademark for its glass products.. L-22773 March 29. Esguerra and Muñoz Palma. No. that the said law firm was authorized to represent it by virtue of the powers it had vested upon Langner.. In the case at bar. as in fact it asserted in writing. 1963 the Director of Patents. doing business as "SIN TECK HENG & CO.. however. On November 14. especially when no substantial prejudice is thereby caused to any third party. On the same day.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->