This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Vs CA gr no 121267 oct 23 2001 Kho vs ca gr no 115758 march 19 2002 Sambar vs levis strauss & co gr no 132604 march 6 2002 Ong ching kian chuan vs ca gr no 130360 aug 15 2001 Solid triangle sales corp et al vs the sheriff of rtc QC gr no 144309 nov 23 2001 Asia brewert inc vs ca 224 scra 437 Emerald garment manufacturing corp vs ca gr no 100098 dec 29 1995 Converse rubber corp vs universal rubber products inc & tiburcio iballe gr no l-27906 jan 8 1987 Andres romero vs maiden form brassiere co inc gr no l-18289 march 31 1964 Canon kabushiki kaisha vs ca and nsr rubber corp gr no 120900 july 20 2000
I. SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES, LTD. plaintiff-appellee, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and DANLEX RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC., (Patent) Facts Petitioner is the assignee of a Letter Patent covering the pharmaceutical product Cimetidine, which relates to derivatives of heterocyclicthio or lower alkoxy or amino lower alkyl thiourea, ureas or guanadines. Said Patent was issued on Private respondent filed with the BPTTT a petition for compulsory license to manufacture and produce its own brand of medicines using Cimetidine. Private respondent invoked Section 34 (1) (e) of Republic Act No. 165, (the Patent Law), which states that an application for the grant of a compulsory license under a particular patent may be filed with the BPTTT at any time after the lapse of two (2) years from the date of grant of such patent, if the patented invention or article relates to food or medicine, or manufactured substances which can be used as food or medicine, or is necessary for public health or public safety. The petition for compulsory license stated that Cimetidine is useful as an antihistamine and in the treatment of ulcers, and that private respondent is capable of using the patented product in the manufacture of a useful product.
there was no need to grant a compulsory license to private respondent to manufacture. hence. The Bureau of Patents. and the compulsory license applied for by private respondent is for the . Petitioner further stated that its manufacture. or is necessary for public health or public safety. More than ten years have passed since the patent for Cimetidine was issued to petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest. petitioner wanted to set aside the said decisions thus the fling of the case to the SC. Held It was held by the SC under section 34 of the patent law. arguing that the private respondent had no cause of action and failed to allege how it intended to work the patented product. or to employ the patented process. (e) If the patented invention or article relates to food or medicine or manufactured substances which can be used as food or medicine.Petitioner opposed the petition for compulsory license. (2) In any of the above cases. Importation shall not constitute "working". of patented machine. use and sales of Cimetidine satisfied the needs of the Philippine market. use and sell the same. Now. The grant of the compulsory license satisfies the requirements of the foregoing provision. in or by means of a definite and substantial establishment or organization in the Philippines and on a scale which is reasonable and adequate under the circumstances. Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) granted the application of the respondent for compulsory licensing and the CA affirmed the decision of the BPTTT. or the application of the patented process for production. a compulsory license shall be granted to the petitioner provided that he has proved his capability to work the patented product or to make use of the patented product in the manufacture of a useful product. (3) The term "worked" or "working" as used in this section means the manufacture and sale of the patented article. Issue Whether or not the abovementioned patent can be the subject of compulsory licensing. petitioner also claimed that the grant of a compulsory license to private respondent would not promote public safety and that the latter was only motivated by pecuniary gain. Finally.
Furthermore. alleged as their defense that (1) Summerville is the exclusive and authorized importer. The respondents. The name and container of a beauty cream product are proper subjects of a trademark in as much as the same falls squarely within its definition. that the respondents should be enjoined from allegedly infringing on the copyrights and patents of the petitioner. on the other hand. (3) that KEC Cosmetics Laboratory of the petitioner obtained the copyrights through misrepresentation and falsification. 2002. 115758. thereby misleading the public.use. not having proven that she has registered a trademark thereto or used the same before anyone did. In order to be entitled to exclusively use the same in the sale of the beauty cream product. registered owner of Chin Chun Su and oval facial cream container/case. The petitioner¶s copyright and patent registration of the name and container would not guarantee her the right to exclusive use of the same for the reason that they are not appropriate subjects of the said intellectual rights. (2) that the said Taiwanese manufacturing company authorized Summerville to register its trade name Chin Chun Cu Medicated Cream with the Philippine Patent office and Other appropriate governmental agencies. assignee of the patent registration certificate. Consequently. and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot be interchanged with one another. Elidad C. and. manufacture and sale of a medicinal product. Summerville General Merchandising Company and Ang Tiam Chay (G. The petition was denied. ISSUE: Whether or not Kho has the sole right using the package of Chin Chun Su products RULING: Petitioner has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use of the subject trade name and its container. in similar containers that petitioner uses. the user must sufficiently prove that she registered or used it before anybody else did. to distribute and market Chin Chun Su products in the Philippines had already terminated by the said Taiwanese manufacturing company. the registered owner thereof in the supplemental register of the Philippine Patent Office and that Summerville advertised and sold petitioner¶s cream products under the brand name Chin Chun Su. In .R. Kho vs. and alleges that she also has patent rights on Chin Chun Su and Device and Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream after purchasing the same from Quintin Cheng. II. re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun Su products manufactured by Shun Yi factory of Taiwan. March 19. A trademark is any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container goods. Court of Appeals. and. a preliminary injunction order cannot be issued for the reason that the petitioner has not proven that she has a clear right over the said name and container to the exclusion of others. (4) that the authority of Quintin Cheng. both the appellate court and the BPTTT found that private respondent had the capability to work Cimetidine or to make use thereof in the manufacture of a useful product. No. 379 SCRA 410) FACTS: Petitionerµs allegations are that they are doing business under the name and style of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory. NOTE: Trademark. and resulting in the decline in the petitioner¶s business sales and income. copyright.
relation thereto. refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new. Patentable inventions. a trade name means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise. involves an inventive step and is industrial applicable. the scope of copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation. on the other hand. . Meanwhile.
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 reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.