April 1954 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > April 1954 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-5943 April 12, 1954 - CO SAN v. CELEDONIO AGRAVA, ET AL.
094 Phil 739:
094 Phil 739:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-5943. April 12, 1954.]
CO SAN alias CO KING CHONG, recurrente y apelante, contra CELEDONIO AGRAVA, como Director de la Oficina de Patentes, y JOSE ONG LIAN BIO, recurridos y apelados.
Sres. Allas y Castillo en representacion del apelante.
El Procurador General Sr. Juan Liwag en representacion del apelado director.
Sres. Quirino y Lasam en representacion del apelado Jose Ong Lian Bio.
SYLLABUS
1. PATENTES; SOLICITUD DE CANCELACION DE UN PATENTE LIBRADO; JURISDICCION DEL DIRECTOR DE LA OFICINA DE PATENTES. — El Director de la Oficina de Patentes tiene facultad para considerar la cancelaci on 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 art iculos que manufactura y que est an tomados de cat alogos impresos de manufactureros americanos de art iculos id enticos.
2. ID.; ID.; LEY APACIBLE. — El art iculo 28 de la Ley de la Rep ublica No. 165 es aplicable a este caso, no s olo porque concierne al procedimiento de cancelaci on de patentes de diseños industriales indebidamente expedidos, sino tambi en porque refleja la correcta interpretaci on del art iculo 55 de la Ley, en el tiempo en que se present o la petici on de cancelaci on de patentes de diseños industriales, en relaci on con los art iculos que le preceden de la misma ley.
3. ID.; APELACIONES; PARTIES. — No es necesaria la inclusi on del Director de la Oficina de Patentes como parte en una apelaci on contra una decisi on u orden de dicha Oficina.
2. ID.; ID.; LEY APACIBLE. — El art iculo 28 de la Ley de la Rep ublica No. 165 es aplicable a este caso, no s olo porque concierne al procedimiento de cancelaci on de patentes de diseños industriales indebidamente expedidos, sino tambi en porque refleja la correcta interpretaci on del art iculo 55 de la Ley, en el tiempo en que se present o la petici on de cancelaci on de patentes de diseños industriales, en relaci on con los art iculos que le preceden de la misma ley.
3. ID.; APELACIONES; PARTIES. — No es necesaria la inclusi on del Director de la Oficina de Patentes como parte en una apelaci on contra una decisi on u orden de dicha Oficina.
D E C I S I O N
DIOKNO, M. :
La cuesti on legal que la apelaci on plantea es si el Director de la Oficina de Patentes tiene facultad para considerar la cancelaci on 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 art iculos que manufactura y que est an tomados de cat alogos impresos de manufactureros americanos de art iculos id enticos.
Se trata de unas franjas ornamentales en los bordes de maletines de viaje por las que el Director de Patentes concedi o dos patentes de diseño industrial al recurrido Jose Ong Lian Bio, sin previa notificaci on p ublica o privada. Habi endose enterado de las patentes a los tres meses de concedidas, el recurrente acudi o al Director de Patentes pidiendo la cancelaci on de las mismas por los motivos arriba brevemente mencionados, pero, a moci on del recurrido Ong, el Director sobresey o la petici on por creerse sin autoridad legal para considerarla. Contra esta resoluci on el recurrente apel o para ante esta Corte de conformidad con los art iculos 61 al 66 de la Ley de la Republica No. 165.
La expedici on de patentes de diseños industriales est a regulada por el art iculo 55 de la Ley citada, que dice asi, seg un est a enmendado:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Sec. 55. Design patents and patents for utility models. — Any new, original, and ornamental design for an article or manufacture and (b) any new model 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 this 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 el art iculo 28 de dicha ley, seg un est a enmendado, dice:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SEC 28. General grounds for cancellation. — Any person may on payment of the required fee petition the 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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) That the invention is not new or patentable in accordance with sections seven, eight, and nine, 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 art iculo es aplicable a este caso, no s olo porque concierne al procedimiento de cancelaci on de patentes de diseños industriales indebidamente expedidos, sino tambien porque refleja la correcta interpretaci on del art iculo 55 de la Ley, en el tiempo en que se present o la petici on de cancelaci on de patentes de diseños industriales, en relaci on con los articulos que le preceden de la misma ley.En virtud de lo expuesto, se revoca la decisi on apelada, y se devuelve el asunto para ulteriores tr amites de acuerdo con la ley, con las costas al recurrente Ong en esta instancia. Desc artese al Director de Patentes como parte recurrida en esta apelaci on. As i se ordena.
Paras, Pres., Pablo, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador y Concepcion, MM., estan conformes.
Se trata de unas franjas ornamentales en los bordes de maletines de viaje por las que el Director de Patentes concedi o dos patentes de diseño industrial al recurrido Jose Ong Lian Bio, sin previa notificaci on p ublica o privada. Habi endose enterado de las patentes a los tres meses de concedidas, el recurrente acudi o al Director de Patentes pidiendo la cancelaci on de las mismas por los motivos arriba brevemente mencionados, pero, a moci on del recurrido Ong, el Director sobresey o la petici on por creerse sin autoridad legal para considerarla. Contra esta resoluci on el recurrente apel o para ante esta Corte de conformidad con los art iculos 61 al 66 de la Ley de la Republica No. 165.
La expedici on de patentes de diseños industriales est a regulada por el art iculo 55 de la Ley citada, que dice asi, seg un est a enmendado:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Sec. 55. Design patents and patents for utility models. — Any new, original, and ornamental design for an article or manufacture and (b) any new model 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 this 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 el art iculo 28 de dicha ley, seg un est a enmendado, dice:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SEC 28. General grounds for cancellation. — Any person may on payment of the required fee petition the 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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) That the invention is not new or patentable in accordance with sections seven, eight, and nine, 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 art iculo es aplicable a este caso, no s olo porque concierne al procedimiento de cancelaci on de patentes de diseños industriales indebidamente expedidos, sino tambien porque refleja la correcta interpretaci on del art iculo 55 de la Ley, en el tiempo en que se present o la petici on de cancelaci on de patentes de diseños industriales, en relaci on con los articulos que le preceden de la misma ley.En virtud de lo expuesto, se revoca la decisi on apelada, y se devuelve el asunto para ulteriores tr amites de acuerdo con la ley, con las costas al recurrente Ong en esta instancia. Desc artese al Director de Patentes como parte recurrida en esta apelaci on. As i se ordena.
Paras, Pres., Pablo, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador y Concepcion, MM., estan conformes.
