This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
COURT OF APPEALS, DIRECTOR OF PATENTS and the BARBIZON CORPORATION, respondents. KEYWORD: “BARBIZON” BRASSIERS The Convention of Paris for the Protection of Industrial Property is a multi-lateral treaty which the Philippines bound itself to honor and enforce in this country. As to whether or not the treaty affords protection to a foreign corporation against a Philippine applicant for the registration of a similar trademark is the principal issue in this case. Modern authorities on trademark law view trademarks as performing three distinct functions: (1) they indicate origin or ownership of the articles to which they are attached; (2) they guarantee that those articles come up to a certain standard of quality; and (3) they advertise the articles they symbolize. Today, the trademark is not merely a symbol of origin and goodwill; it is often the most effective agent for the actual creation and protection of goodwill. It imprints upon the public mind an anonymous and impersonal guaranty of satisfaction, creating a desire for further satisfaction. In other words, the mark actually sells the goods. The mark has become the "silent salesman," the conduit through which direct contact between the trademark owner and the consumer is assured. In the last half century, the unparalleled growth of industry and the rapid development of communications technology have enabled trademarks, tradenames and other distinctive signs of a product to penetrate regions where the owner does not actually manufacture or sell the product itself. Goodwill is no longer confined to the territory of actual market penetration; it extends to zones where the marked article has been fixed in the public mind through advertising. Whether in the print, broadcast or electronic communications medium, particularly on the Internet, advertising has paved the way for growth and expansion of the product by creating and earning a reputation that crosses over borders, virtually turning the whole world into one vast marketplace. The Convention of Paris for the Protection of Industrial Property, otherwise known as the Paris Convention, is a multilateral treaty that seeks to protect industrial property consisting of patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names and indications of source or appellations of origin, and at the same time aims to repress unfair competition. In the case at bar, private respondent anchors its cause of action on the first paragraph of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention which reads as follows: "Article 6 (1) The countries of the Union undertake, either administratively if their legislation so permits, or at the request of an interested party, to refuse or to cancel the registration and to prohibit the use, of a trademark which constitutes a reproduction, an imitation, or a translation, liable to create confusion, of a mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use to be well-known in that country as being already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of this Convention and used for identical or similar goods. These provisions shall also apply when the essential part of the mark constitutes a reproduction of any such wellknown mark or an imitation liable to create confusion therewith…”
1998 and by its express provision. the Patent Law." The Intellectual Property Code took effect on January 1. it attracts foreign investments. toner. The Code was enacted to strengthen the intellectual and industrial property system in the Philippines as mandated by the country's accession to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). A review of the records shows that with the order of the BPTTT declaring private respondent in default for failure to file its answer.] However." This competent authority would be either the registering authority if it has the power to decide this. facilitates transfer of technology. citing Sta. (1987).] CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA. 2000.7 [Rollo. 18. § 20. dyestuff). Articles 188 and 189 of the Revised Penal Code. Inc. and the Decree on Compulsory Reprinting of Foreign Textbooks. the use of the same trademark on the latter's product cannot be validly objected to. 160. No. the trademark owner is entitled to protection when the use of by the junior user "forestalls the normal expansion of his business". the registrant's ownership of the mark or tradename. COURT OF APPEALS and NSR RUBBER CORPORATION. On this basis. and of the registrant's exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods. private respondent can use the trademark CANON for its goods classified as class 25 (sandals). business or services specified in the certificate. the ownership of a trademark or tradename is a property right that the owner is entitled to protect [Converse Rubber Corporation vs. petitioner had every opportunity to present ex-parte all of its evidence to prove that its certificates of registration for the trademark CANON cover footwear. chemical products.p. there is a world of difference between the paints. chemical products. the Decree on Intellectual Property.-A certificate of registration of a mark or trade-name shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration. the BPTTT correctly ruled that since the certificate of registration of petitioner for the trademark CANON covers class 2 (paints.R. when a trademark is used by a party for a product in which the other party does not deal. clearly showed that said certificates of registration cover goods belonging to class 2 (paints. 120900. respondents. and ensures market access for our products. 147 SCRA 154. and dyestuff of petitioner and the sandals of private respondent.] as mandated by the Trademark Law.5 [RA 166. The power to determine whether a trademark is well-known lies in the "competent authority of the country of registration or use. KEYWORD: “CANON” for sandals Ordinarily. Petitioner counters that notwithstanding the dissimilarity of the products of the parties. The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines declares that "an effective intellectual and industrial property system is vital to the development of domestic and creative activity. Certificate of registration prima facie evidence of validity. The certificates of registration for the trademark CANON in other countries and in the Philippines as presented by petitioner. chemical products. dyestuff). Clearly. or the courts of the country in question if the issue comes before a court. toner. toner. G. July 20. petitioner.The essential requirement under Article 6 is that the trademark to be protected must be "well-known" in the country where protection is sought. p. vs. subject to any conditions and limitations stated therein. Ana . repealed the Trademark Law. Universal Rubber Products.
p. 24 SCRA 1018 (1968). Teodoro14 [74 Phil 50 (1942)] and Converse Rubber Corporation vs. shoe polisher. petitioner invokes the rulings in Sta. Stretching this argument. We quote with approval the observation of the Court of Appeals that: "The herein petitioner has not made known that it intends to venture into the business of producing sandals. Intermediate Appellate Court. the product for which the trademark BRUTE was sought to be registered. except for its bare assertions.] In support of the foregoing arguments.8 [Ibid. Ana vs. p. (the senior user). Incorporated vs. deodorant. . Petitioner is apprehensive that there could be confusion as to the origin of the goods. In sustaining the Director of Patents. Petitioner further argues that the alleged diversity of its products all over the world makes it plausible that the public might be misled into thinking that there is some supposed connection between private respondent's goods and petitioner.] Thus.] Petitioner's opposition to the registration of its trademark CANON by private respondent rests upon petitioner's insistence that it would be precluded from using the mark CANON for various kinds of footwear.. This is clearly shown in its Trademark Principal Register (Exhibit "U") where the products of the said petitioner had been clearly and specifically described as "Chemical products.15 [Supra. p. this Court said that since "(the senior user) has not ventured in the production of briefs. was unrelated and non-competing with the products of the senior user consisting of after shave lotion. the goodwill and reputation of petitioner Canon". The senior user vehemently objected and claimed that it was expanding its trademark to briefs and argued that permitting the junior user to register the same trademark would allow the latter to invade the senior user's exclusive domain.9 [Faberge.12 [Rollo. and toilet soap. p. as well as confusion of business. Maliwat13 [Supra. subject to the conditions and limitations stated therein.] In Faberge. 325. Universal Rubber Products. and reap the advantages of. talcum powder.. dyestuffs. cannot and should not be allowed to feign that (the junior user) had invaded (the senior user's) exclusive domain.vs. pigments. toner developing preparation. shaving cream. 23. 326. if private respondent is allowed to register the mark CANON."10 [Ibid. In such a case. p. when in fact it has earlier used said mark for said goods. polishing agent". It would be taxing one's credibility to aver at this point that the production of sandals could be considered as a possible "natural or normal expansion" of its business operation". the exclusive right of petitioner in this case to use the trademark CANON is limited to the products covered by its certificate of registration. petitioner claims that it is possible that the public could presume that petitioner would also produce a wide variety of footwear considering the diversity of its products marketed worldwide.]. 38. petitioner failed to attach evidence that would convince this Court that petitioner has also embarked in the production of footwear products. petitioner would allegedly be immensely prejudiced if private respondent would be permitted to take "a free ride on.. 215 SCRA 326 (1992)] the Director of patents allowed the junior user to use the trademark of the senior user on the ground that the briefs manufactured by the junior user.11 [Ibid. We do not agree. Ang vs.] We reiterated the principle that the certificate of registration confers upon the trademark owner the exclusive right to use its own symbol only to those goods specified in the certificate. an item which is not listed in its certificate of registration. Intermediate Appellate Court. Incorporated vs. Maliwat.. Inc. Even in this instant petition.]. 1025.
if a taxicab or bus company in a town in the United Kingdom or India happens to use the tradename "Rapid Transportation". to wit: "A tradename shall be protected in all the countries of the Union without the obligation of filing or registration. However. when they possess the same physical attributes or essential characteristics with reference to their form. To illustrate . a set of guidelines in the implementation of Article 6bis (sic) of the Treaty of Paris. p. Here. if not identical. AGPALO. [RUBEN E. Inc. the products involved are so unrelated that the public will not be misled that there is the slightest nexus between petitioner and the goods of private respondent. are hardly in point.] Contrary to petitioner's supposition. In cases of confusion of business or origin. This office is not unmindful that in the Treaty of Paris for the Protection of Intellectual Property regarding well-known marks and possible application thereof in this case. 116 SCRA 336 (1982). 54. issued a memorandum dated 25 October 1983 to the Director of Patents. petitioner invokes the protective mantle of the Paris Convention. Fiji.] Goods are related when they belong to the same class or have the same descriptive properties. The just cited cases involved goods that were confusingly similar. Court of Appeals. Teodoro and Converse Rubber Corporation vs. Ang vs. [Ibid. Court of Appeals. or the Philippines. vs. composition. Inc. the Hon. as in the case of Converse Rubber Corporation vs. supra." The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property does not automatically exclude all countries of the world which have signed it from using a tradename which happens to be used in one country. and sometimes peculiar. Ongpin. Inc. whether or not it forms part of a trademark. as this office sees it. p. [Esso Standard Eastern. 342. the then Minister of Trade and Industry. p. [Esso Standard Eastern. Petitioner. Petitioner asserts that it has the exclusive right to the mark CANON because it forms part of its corporate name or tradename. is trying to seek refuge under its protective mantle.The likelihood of confusion of goods or business is a relative concept. Ana vs. the question that usually arises is whether the respective goods or services of the senior user and the junior user are so related as to likely cause confusion of business or origin. texture or quality. Roberto V. in trademark law cases. (1990). Maliwat. Universal Rubber Products.] They may also be related because they serve the same purpose or are sold in grocery stores. precedent must be studied in the light of the facts of the particular case. 341. circumstances of each case. These conditions are: . the facts of this case will show that the cases of Sta. even more than in other litigation. to be determined only according to the particular. protected by Article 8 of the Paris Convention.] Indeed. it does not necessarily follow that "Rapid" can no longer be registered in Uganda. vs. claiming that the subject mark is well known in this country at the time the then application of NSR Rubber was filed. Universal Rubber Products. TRADEMARK LAW AND PRACTICE IN THE PHILIPPINES. Inc. and thereby render the trademark or tradenames confusingly similar. In its bid to bar the registration of private respondent of the mark CANON..
was made independent of the factual finding that petitioner in said case had not conducted its business in this country. 1977. Switzerland. Suffice it to say that the just quoted pronouncement in the case of Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. Petitioner's contention that its mark is well-known at the time the Respondent filed its application for the same mark should fail. Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization. unless of course they have acquired secondary meaning. It is the common practice for trademark owners to register designs forming outline of their distinguishing mark. when used as vehicles for display of word marks. but when the registrant of such design relies upon . Petitioner points out that in the case of Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. September 30. G. triangles. petitioner therein was found to have never at all conducted its business in the Philippines unlike herein petitioner who has extensively conducted its business here and also had its trademark registered in this country. not a patent or copyright or anything else. and the like. Common geometric shapes such as circles. Intermediate Appellate Court to this case.] VICTORIA MILLING COMPANY. it is ruled that the Petitioner failed to comply with the third requirement of the said memorandum that is the mark must be for use in the same or similar kinds of goods. IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF PATENTS. No. vs. ovals. Intermediate Appellate Court that Article 8 of the Paris Convention does not automatically extend protection to a tradename that is in danger of being infringed in a country that is also a signatory to said treaty. pp. but I find absolutely nothing to base a ruling that the triangle (sic) design has acquired a secondary meaning with respect to its sugar business. Bogsch. L-28499. petitioner submits that this factual difference renders inapplicable our ruling in the case of Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. it appears that petitioner is relying heavily on its diamond design. "32 [Records. The Petitioner is using the mark "CANON" for products belonging to class 2 (paints. 21-22. EVALLE. INC. and the printing sequence or arrangement of such legends as weight. Hence. contents and manufacturer or packer. Intermediate Appellate Court. This contention deserves scant consideration.R..] Petitioner assails the application of the case of Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. respondents. ONG SU AND THE HONORABLE TIBURCIO S. Geneva. ordinarily are not regarded as indicia of origin for goods to which the marks are applied. the color scheme. 1985)' From the set of facts found in the records. petitioner. KEYWORD: DIAMOND design for sugar From the evidence and pleadings. I have scoured the records completely to ascertain if the petitioner has submitted satisfactory evidence in this regard. b) the subject of the right must be a trademark. diamonds. I am of the firm belief that the diamond portion of petitioner's trademark has not bolstered its cause. squares. c ) the mark must be for use in the same or similar kinds of goods. Intermediate Appellate Court. Article by Dr.a) the mark must be internationally known. chemical products) while the Respondent is using the same mark for sandals (class 25). and d) the person claiming must be the owner of the mark (The Parties Convention Commentary on the Paris Convention. Hence.
. No. as Director of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry. vs. INC.] ANG SI HENG and SALUSTIANA DEE. (LTD.] FORBES. [G. G. as Director of Patents. 1942. No. likelihood of purchaser confusion resulting from registrant's use of VALENTINE within a diamond and petitioner's use of VICTORIAS within a diamond. January 10.R.. 10738.R. S. 14269. plaintiff-appellant. LTD. v. April 29. January 14. MUNN & CO.. G.R. THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS and TIU CHIAN.registration in proceeding based upon likelihood of confusion of purchasers. Considering herein that the petitioner failed to establish that diamond design component of its mark has acquired a secondary meaning and that the literal portion of the marks have no similarity. vs.] AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY...R.. vs. No. crossdefendants. TORIBIO TEODORO. there is no reasonable. vs. Overseas Finance & Trading Co. as indicating goods emanating from the registrant. L-4531.. LTD. plaintiff-appellant. appellee.] ANA L.] PHILIPPINE NUT INDUSTRY. GERMANN & CO. The contention of petitioner that the diamond design in its trademark is an index of origin has no merit. WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE INC. G. May 2.. No. petitioner. 1919. as indicating goods coming from the registrant.-Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. The petitioner has not shown that the design portion of the mark has been so used that purchasers recognize the design. G.R. vs. INC. 1953. respondents. and FILEMON COSIO. plaintiffs-appellants. STANDARD BRANDS INCORPORATED and TIBURCIO S.). 1939. R. FELIX PAGLINAWAN & CO. defendant-appellant. 1916. G. G. (ComrPats) 112 USPQ 6. July 31. ANG SAN To. standing alone.. 48226. The word "Victorias" is what identifies the sugar contained in the bag as the product of the petitioner. he assumes the burden of showing that the design portion of the mark has been so used that purchasers recognize the design. MENDINUETO. 45502. CORNELIO BALMACEDA. 1975. No. common geometric shapes such as diamonds ordinarily are not regarded as indicia of origin for goods to which the marks arc applied unless they have acquired a secondary meaning. hexagon and other designs. L-23035. L-23954.. As correctly stated by the Director of Patents. the petitioner has advertised its sugar in bags marked "Victorias" with oval. . vs. December 14. cross-plaintiff-appellant. October 16. respondent.] SAPOLIN CO. No.. respondents. defendantappellee. standing alone. And there is no evidence that the diamond design in the trademark of the petitioner has acquired a secondary meaning with respect to its sugar business. Indeed. Inc. ANG. 1977.] RUEDA HERMANOS & CO. and GERMANN & CO.. BENJAMIN CHUA. EVALLE. No. vs. defendants-appellees.R. petitioner. petitioner.R.
. 2001.R. A. G. in his capacity as Director.. L-14761.] PRO LINE SPORTS CENTER.] ARCE SONS AND COMPANY. 2001.. vs. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS. and SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT. INC. June 21. respondent. and NESTLE PHILIPPINES. vs. April 27. No.R. March 31. V. respondents. RTC of Quezon City. October 16. INC. vs. HON. S.] . 1966. 111580. 1956.. L-17501. respondents. L-3952. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS and WESTMONT PHARMACEUTICALS. respondents..] CHUA CHE. vs. G. INC. petitioner.] MASSO HERMANOS. A. L-18337. No. SHANGRI-LA PROPERTIES.R. No. INC. LTD. MAIDEN FORM BRASSIERE CO. [G. petitioner. No. INC. [G. SAPALO.. 2001..A. April 4. Branch 99 and DEVELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES.. October 31. VAN DORP. L-8072... 1961.R. vs. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS.R.] MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY. petitioner. MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL AND RESORT. IGNACIO S. 1997. petitioner.R. G. 2001. respondent. January 28. FELIX M. 112012. SELECTA BISCUIT COMPANY. 139300. PHILIPPINE PATENT OFFICE and SY TUO. December 29.] ETEPHA. INC. vs. J. 1953. INC.. No. [G. G. LTD....] LIM HOA. June 21. No. respondents. INC.. and MONICO SEHWANI. petitioners. No. 1965. G. No. S.] AMIGO MANUFACTURING. respondents. vs.R.] DEVELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES. No.R. G. March 31. 118192. as Judge. 1964.G. INC.R. INC. respondents. petitioner. G. vs. 1997. 123248. and QUESTOR CORPORATION. respondent. respondents. THE COURT OF APPEALS. Bureau of Patents.. petitioner. G. vs. Inc. L-20635. THE COURT OF APPEALS. vs. 1963.] SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT LTD. INC. respondents. No.] SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE. COURT OF APPEALS and CFC CORPORATION. vs.G.R. COURT OF APPEALS. ET AL. respondents. UNIVERSAL ATHLETICS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS. vs. 114802. ET AL.. January 30. Trademarks and Technology Transfer. and THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS. DE GUZMAN.R. October 23. petitioners. petitioner. No. petitioners. INC. G. petitioner. HON.. March 14. No..R. No. N.R. L-18289. petitioner. CLUETT PEABODY CO.] ANDRES ROMERO. and KUOK PHILIPPINE PROPERTIES.
May 21..R.] ESSO STANDARD EASTERN. Manila and GOBINDRAM HEMANDAS. 75420. 71189. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and CO BENG KAY.R. vs.R. INCORPORATED.] . DIRECTOR OF PATENTS. 103543. vs. respondents. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT. February 26. respondents. petitioners. January 25. INC. INC. respondents. plaintiffs-appellants. petitioner.R. No. petitioner. 1980. No. S. FERNANDEZ. G. JACINTO RUBBER & PLASTICS CO.. and TIBURCIO S. No. 78298. vs. G.R. petitioner. respondents. vs. OSCAR C. vs.. vs. January 30. No. COURT OF APPEALS and SUNSHINE SAUCE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES. LTD. No. January 8.] CONVERSE RUBBER CORPORATION. July 30.. CRUZ. Regional Trial Court. INC. No. A. Nos. G. vs. 1992. INC. also known and trading as ISETAN CO.] LA CHEMISE LACOSTE. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ** and UNITED CIGARETTE CORPORATION. vs. G. 1988..] PUMA SPORTSCHUHFABRIKEN RUDOLF DASSLER. L-27906.. defendants-appellants. INC. respondents. vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS. No. G. petitioner. respondents. respondents.. INC. L-26676.] FABERGE. K.] PHILIPPINE REFINING CO. petitioner.] DEL MONTE CORPORATION and PHILIPPINE PACKING CORPORATION. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND LOLITO P.TWIN ACE HOLDINGS CORPORATION.] FRUIT OF THE LOOM. petitioner. 78325.R. vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LORENZANA FOOD CORPORATION. Nos.. 1987. petitioner. G. 1984. L-32747.R. and ACE RUBBER & PLASTICS CORPORATION. G. EVALLE. INC.R. UNIVERSAL RUBBER PRODUCTS. November 15. November 29. respondents.. petitioner. 1984.G.] WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE. petitioner. NG SAM and THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS. August 31. vs. and ISETANN DEPARTMENT STORE. G. 1991. HON. July 5. April 28. COURT OF APPEALS and GENERAL GARMENTS CORPORATION. 1990.R. National Capital Judicial Region. L-29971. G. respondents. Presiding Judge of Branch XLIX.. No. G. G. 75067. 1989.] CONVERSE RUBBER CORPORATION and EDWARDSON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION. 1993. vs. 1982. L-27425 & L-30505. 63796-97.R.] KABUSHI KAISHA ISETAN.R. G. No. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and MIL-ORO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION.. respondents. 1982. petitioner.R. November 4. No.
vs. petitioner. respondents. L-24075. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION. COURT OF APPEALS. DR. vs. respondents.] JOSE P. INC. G. LEE COMPANY. G. vs. No. vs. December 29. MAGDALO V.. vs. PEREZ... COURT OF APPEALS and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION. vs.R. L-23023.. ANA. July 18.R. respondents. G.] MARVEX COMMERCIAL CO. FLORENTINO MALIWAT and TIBURCIO S. February 18. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS and CENTRAL BANAHAW INDUSTRIES..R. PETRA HAWPIA & CO. G.] CRISANTA Y. respondents... HON. GABRIEL. petitioners. and VICTORIANO V. COURT OF APPEALS and EMILIA M. petitioners.R. 1995. G.] ACOJE MINING CO. petitioners. vs. and VICTORIA BISCUITS CO. THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS and LUIS P. G. respondents.] THE EAST PACIFIC MERCHANDISING CORPORATION. No. 1970. 1993. COURT OF APPEALS. respondents.] HEIRS OF CRISANTA Y.. GABRIEL-ALMORADIE. petitioner. FRANCISCO.] CONRAD AND COMPANY. vs. INC. August 31.R. vs. EVALLE. April 29.] AMERICAN WIRE & CABLE COMPANY. STA. JOSE R. 1995. January 4. No. HON. respondents. No. INC. 1966. L-29155.A. petitioner...R. S.D. herein represented by the special administrator LORENZO B. vs. ALMORADIE of the Intestate Estate of the Late Crisanta Y. petitioner. INC.R. petitioner. ALMORADIE. 1971. [G. 1970. No. respondents. BENSON & HEDGES (CANADA). INC. No. petitioner. BUREAU OF PATENTS. 1994. 1968. SUMERA. Gabriel-Almoradie and LORENZO B.R. petitioner-applicant. SR. respondents. FITRITE INC. petitioner. in his capacity as Director of Patents.R. G. L-28744. INC. THE HON. No. 1960.] UNIVERSAL FOOD CORPORATION. May 13. July 16.R. vs.. December 29. 91332. respondent. L-26557.. L-19297.. .] PHILIP MORRIS. January 31. JOSE R. AND FABRIQUES OF TABAC REUNIES. 115115. respondents. 91385. G. 1974. TRADEMARKS AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER and H. 100098. respondents. No. INC.ASIA BREWERY. L-14377.R. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS. G. G. and THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS. petitioner. No.] EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION. PEREZ and HONORABLE TIBURCIO EVALLE as Director of Patents. INC. No. THE DlRECTOR OF PATENTS. December 22. herein sued in her capacity as special administratrix of the Testate Estate of the late DR. No. PELLICER. FRANCISCO.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.