Smith Kline Beckman Co. v Court of Appeals and Tryco Pharma GR No. 126627, August 14, 2003

Facts:

Petitioner Smith Kline Beckman Co., licensed to do business in the Philippines, filed on October 8, 1976 as assignee before the Bureau of Patents an application for patent on its invention called “Methods and Compositions for Producing Biphasic Parasiticide Activity Using Methyl 5 Propylthio-2-Benzimidazole Carbanate.” A Letters of Patent was issued to the petitioner on September 24, 1981 for a period of 17 years. The patent provides that the patented invention consists of Methyl 5 Propylthio-2-Benzimidazole Carbanate used as an active ingredient in treating gastrointestinal parasites and lung worms in animals. The respondent Tryco Pharma manufactures, distributes and sells veterinary product, one of which is the Impregon, a drug having Albendazole as its active ingredient effective against gastrointestinal worms in animals. Petitioner now sues the respondent for patent infringement and unfair competition before the RTC as it claims that their patent includes the substance Albendazole used by the respondent and they sold and used the drug Impregon without the petitioner’s authorization and committed unfair competition for selling as its own the drug that substantially functions to achieve the same result. Petitioner further contends that under the doctrine of equivalents in determining patent infringement, the active substance Albendazole used by the respondent is substantially the same as Methyl 5 Propylthio-2-Benzimidazole Carbanate covered by its patent with the same use of combating worm infestations in animals. It prodded the court to go beyond the literal words used in the Letter of Patent issued to them to consider that the words Methyl 5 Propylthio-2-Benzimidazole Carbanate and Albendazole are the same. Respondent avers that the Letter of Patents issued to petitioner does not cover Albendazole in that the word does not appear on it. Even if the patent were to include Albendazole it is unpatentable. They secured approval from the Bureau of Foods and Drugs to manufacture and market Impregon with the Albendazole as its active ingredients. The petitioner has no proof that they passed their veterinary products as that of the petitioner.

Francisco Joaquin vs Franklin Drilon GR No. 108946, January 28, 1999

Facts:

BJ Productions, Inc (BJPI) is a holder of a Certificate of Copyright no. M922 issued on January 28, 1971 of “Rhoda and Me” which is a dating show aired from 1970 to 1977. It submitted to the National Library an addendum its certificate of copyright specifying the show’s format and style of presentation. While watching the television, its President, Francisco Joaquin saw on RPN Channel 9 the episode on “It’s a Date” produced by IXL Productions. He wrote a letter to IXL’s president Gabriel Zosa informing him that BJPI has a copyright of the same format as shown on their “It’s a Date” show in their “Rhoda and Me” show. Zosa sought to register IXL’s copyright to their first episode of “It’s a Date” to the National Library. Petitioner filed a complaint in violation of PD No. 49 against the respondent before the RTC of Quezon City. Respondent sought a review of the resolution from the Asst. City Prosecutor before the Department of Justice.

Sec. of Justice Franklin Drilon directed to move for dismissal of the case against the respondents and denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration hence this petition before the Supreme Court.

Manly Sportswear Manufacturing Inc. v Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center GR No. 165306, September 20, 2005

Facts:

The NBI secured a search warrant on March 14, 2003 from the RTC to act upon the information that respondents were in possession of goods copyright of which belongs to the petitioner. Finding reasonable grounds in violation of Section 172 and 217 of RA 8293 a search warrant was issued. Respondents move to quash and annul the search warrant contending it is invalid and the requisites for its issuance are not complied with. They insist that the sporting goods manufactured and registered in the name MANLY is just ordinary and common and not among the classes protected under RA 8293. The court granted the motion to quash declaring the search warrant null and void because there were certificates of registrations issued earlier than MANLY for the same sporting goods under various brands thereby negating the fact that their products are copyrighted and original creations. Motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court sustaining the lower court’s decision thus this instant petition for review for certiorari.

Coffee Partners, Inc. vs. San Francisco Coffee and Roastery, Inc. G.R. No. 169504, March 3, 2010

Facts:

The petitioner holds a business in maintaining coffee shops in the Philippines. It is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission in January 2001. In its franchise agreement with Coffee Partners Ltd, it carries the trademark “San Francisco Coffee.” Respondent is engaged in the wholesale and retail sale of coffee that was registered in SEC in May 1995 under a registered business name of “San Francisco Coffee &Roastery, Inc.” It entered into a joint venture with Boyd Coffee USA to study coffee carts in malls.

When respondent learned that petitioner will open a coffee shop in Libis, Q.C. they sent a letter to the petitioner demanding them to stop using the name “San Francisco Coffee” as it causes confusion to the minds of the public. A complaint was also filed by respondents before the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office for infringement and unfair competition with claims for damages. Petitioners contend that there are distinct differences in the appearance of their trademark and that respondent abandoned the use of their trademark when it joined venture with Boyd Coffee USA. The Bureau of Legal Affairs of the IPO held that petitioner’s trademark infringed on the respondent’s trade name as it registered its business name first with the DTI in 1995 while petitioner only registered its trademark in 2001.