GR L 5943; (April, 1954) (Digest)
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.
FACTS
The Director of Patents granted two industrial design patents to the respondent Jose Ong Lian Bio for ornamental stripes on the edges of travel suitcases. The patents were issued without prior public or private notification. The petitioner, Co San alias King Chong, learned of the patents three months after their issuance and filed a petition with the Director of Patents seeking their cancellation. The petitioner alleged that the designs were not new and original but were mere copies of designs he had been using on the articles he manufactured, which were themselves taken from printed catalogs of American manufacturers of identical articles. Upon motion of the respondent Ong, the Director of Patents dismissed the petition, believing he lacked legal authority to consider it. The petitioner appealed this resolution to the Supreme Court in accordance with Articles 61 to 66 of Republic Act No. 165 .
ISSUE
Whether the Director of Patents has the authority to consider the cancellation of industrial design patents he has issued when it is alleged that they are not new and original, but are mere copies of designs the petitioner has been using on manufactured articles, which are taken from printed catalogs of American manufacturers of identical articles.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the appealed decision. The issuance of industrial design patents is governed by Section 55 of Republic Act No. 165 , as amended. The grounds for cancellation of a patent are provided in Section 28 of the same Act, as amended. Section 28 explicitly states that any person may petition the Director to cancel a patent on the ground, among others, that “the design or utility model is not new or patentable under section fifty-five thereof.” This provision is applicable to the case as it concerns the procedure for cancellation of improperly issued industrial design patents and reflects the correct interpretation of Section 55 in relation to the preceding articles of the law. The case was remanded to the Director of Patents for further proceedings in accordance with law. Costs were taxed against the respondent Ong. The Director of Patents was dismissed as a party respondent in the appeal.