Co San v. Director of Patents, et al.GR No. L-10563, February 23, 1961 | Bautista Angelo

Facts: Co San was acquitted of the crime of unfair competition by CA.

Jose Ong Lian Bio filed with Philippine Patents Office, and was granted 2 patent applications on 2 designs for luggages.

Co San filed petition for cancellation of letters of patent, which was dismissed by the Director of Patents without hearing and reception of evidence because of his lack of statutory authority to consider the cancellation of design patents.

SC ordered the Director to hear the petition, but during the hearing, only documentary evidence was presented and Co San relied heavily on CA ruling which acquitted him of the crime of unfair competition. Director dismissed the petition for cancellation for insufficiency of evidence.

Issue: WoN Director of Patents is bound in the cancellation proceedings by the findings of the CA in the criminal case against Co San

Held: No. The acquittal of Co San by CA was not based on the cancellation of a patent, but on the opinion that the accused had not deceived or defrauded the complainant

Cancellation proceedings: question refers to the validity of the design patents issued to Jose Ong Lian Bio; Patent office has jdxn

Criminal case: question is WoN Co San unfairly competed against the luggage of Jose Ong Lian Bio; CFI has jdxn

The fact that the evidence in the criminal prosecution was insufficient to show that the defendant was guilty of a crime does not bar the right of the offended party to maintain a civil action for damages. (Worcester v. Ocampo).

A judgment of acquittal in a criminal action for fraudulent registration of a trademark in violation of Sec. 18 of Act No. 666, cannot be invoked as res judicata in a civil action based on unfair and malicious competition on the ground that the facts of the latter are different and have not been passed upon in the judgment rendered in the former case. (Ogura v. Chua and Confesor)

Petition for review is dismissed with costs against petitioner-appellant