Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-5943 April 12, 1954
CO SAN alias KING CHONG, recurrente-apelante,
vs.
CELEDONIO AGRAVA, como Director de la Oficina de Patentes, y JOSE ONG LIAN BIO, recurridos-apelados.
Sres. Allas y Castillo en representacion del apelante.
El Procurador General Sr. Juan Liwag en representacion del apelado director.
Sres. Quirino y Lusam en representacion del apelado Jose Ong Lian Bio.
DIOKNO, J.:
La cuestion legal la apelacion plantea es si el Director de la Oficina de Patentes tiene faculdad para considerar la cancelacion de patentes de diseños industriales que ha librado cuando se alega que no son nuevos y originales, sino meras copias de los que el mocionante viene usando en los articulos que manufactura y que estan tomados de catalogos impresos de manufactureros americanos de articulos identicos.
Se trata de unas franjas ornamentalas en los bordes de maletines de viaje por las que el Director de Patentes concedio dos patentes de diseño industrial al recurrido Jose Ong Lian Bio, sin previa notificacion publica o privada. Habiendose enterado de las patentes a los tres meses de concedidas, el recurrente acudio al Director de Patentes pidiendo la cancelacion de las mismas por los motivos arriba brevemente mencionados, pero, a mocion del recurrido Ong, el Director sobreseyo la peticion por creerse sin autoridad legal para considerarla. Contra esta resolucion el recurrente apelo para ante esta Corte de conformidad con los articulos 61 al 66 de la Ley de la Republica No. 165.
La expedicion de patentes de diseños industriales esta regulada por el articulo 55 de la Ley citada, que dice asi, segun esta enmendado:
SEC. 55. Design patents and patents for utility models. — (a) Any new, original, and ornamental design for an article or manufacture and (b) any new models of implements or tools or of any industrial product, or of part of the same, which does not possess the quality of invention, but which is of practical utility by reason of its form, configuration, construction or composition, may be protected by the author thereof, the former by a patent for a design and the latter by a patent for a utility model, in the same manner subject to the same provisions and requirements as relate to patents for inventions in so far as they are applicable, except as otherwise herein provided.
The standard of novelty established by section nine thereof for inventions shall apply to ornamental designs.
A utility model shall not be considered "new" if, before the application for a patent, it has been publicly known or publicly used in the country, or has been described in a printed publication or publications circulated within the country, or if it is substantially similar to any other utility model so known, used or described within the country.
Applications for design patents and patents for utility models shall be subject to interference proceedings as authorized in section ten of this Act, as amended by section one of Republic Act Numbered Six hundred and thirty-seven.
Patents for designs and for utility models shall be subject to compulsory license as authorized in section thirty-four of this Act. They shall not be subject to the payment of annual fees provided for invention patents in Chapter V hereof." — Republic Act No. 165, as amended by Republic Act No. 637, and further amended by Republic Act No. 864, section 1.
Y del articulo 28 de dicha ley, segun esta enmendado, dice:
SEC. 28. General grounds for cancellation. — Any person may on payment of the required fee petition he Director within three years from the date of publication of the issue of the patent in the Official Gazette, to cancel the patent or any claim thereof, on any of the following grounds:
(a) That the invention is not new or patentable in accordance with sections seven, eight, and nine, or or that the design or utility model is not new or patentable under section fifty-five thereof;
(b) That the specification in the case of an invention does not comply with the requirement of section fourteen, Chapter III hereof; or
(c) That the person to whom the patent was issued was not the true and actual inventor, designer or author of the utility model or did not derive his rights from the true and actual inventor, designer or author of the utility model. — Republic Act No. 165, as amended by Republic Act No. 864, section 2.
Este articulo es aplicable a este caso, no solo porque concierne al procedimiento de cancelacion de patentes de diseños industriales indebiamente expedidos, sino tambien porque refleja la correcta interpretacion del articulo 55 de la Ley, en el tiempo en que se presento la peticion de cancelacion de patentes de diseños industriales, en relcion con los articulos que preceden de la misma ley.
En virtud de lo expuesto, se revoca la decision apelada, y se devuelve el asunto para ulteriores tramites de acuerdo con le ley, con las costas al recurrente Ong en esta instancia. Descartese al Director de Patentes como parte recurrida en esta apelacion. Asi se ordena.
Paras, Pres., Pablo, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, y Concepcion, MM., estan conformes.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
