intellectual property office of the · pdf filesandoval vs. biscocho . ofc . ... protection of...

..

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES

ERIBERTO G. SANDOVAL, Complainant-Appellant,

- versus

SPOUSES LIBERATO and HEIDI BISCOCHO,

Respondents-Appellees.

ATTY. JULIAN F. BARRAMEDA Counsel for Complainant-Appellant Room 302, Fil-Em Bldg., NO.8 Luna St. Poblacion Proper, San Pedro, Laguna

KATIGBAK DIMAILIG ANOSAN & ASSOCIATES Attention: ATTY. ALEJO DIMAILIG Counsel for Respondents-Appellees Unit 605, ACT Tower Building 135 Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City

DIRECTOR EPIFANIO M. EVASCO Bureau of Trademarks Intellectual Property Office

GREETINGS:

APPEAL NO. 10-2004-00001 IPV NO.1 0-2001-00003

For: Infringement of Copyright and Industrial Design with Prayer for Damages and Application for TRO and lor Preliminary Injunction

NOTICE OF DECISION

DIRECTOR ESTRELLITA B. ABELARDO Bureau of Legal Affairs Intellectual Property Office

DIRECTOR CARMEN G. PERALTA Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau Intellectual Property Office

DIRECTOR CORAZON T. MARQUESES Administrative, Finance, HumanResource Development Service Bureau Intellectual Property Office

I Please be informed that on 07 December 2004, the Office of the Director General

rendered a Decision in the above-titled case (copy attached). ! I I

Makati City, 07 December 2004. ft

Very truly yours, !1

ATTY. ~B. SAMSON f Attorney IV !Office of the Director General

.. • "; , 1 f

\

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES

ERIBERTO G. SANDOVAL, APPEAL NO.1 0-2004-00001 Complainant-Appellant, IPV NO. 10-2001-00003

- versus - For: Infringement of Copyright and Industrial Design with Prayer

SPOUSES LIBERATO and for Damages and Application HEIDI BISCOCHO, for TRO and I or Preliminary

Respondents-Appellees. Injunction

)(------------------------------------)(

DECISION

This concerns Decision No. 2003-03 dated 23 December 2003 rendered

~ by the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (Director) dismissing the Complaint

for Infringement of Copyright and Industrial Design with Prayer for Damages and

Application for TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction filed by ERIBERTO G.

SANDOVAL against Spouses LIBERATO and HEIDI BISCOCHO. The Director

also ordered the Cancellation of Certificate of Industrial Design Registration No.

3-2000-00528 issued on 15 March 2001 in favor of ERIBERTO G. SANDOVAL.

The controversies in this case are: (1) Whether or not Respondents-

Appellees LIBERATO AND HEIDI BISCOCHO (Appellees)' are liable for

infringement of copyright and industrial design supposedly owned by

Complainant-Appellant ERIBERTO G. SANDOVAL (Appellant)": and (2) Whether

or not Industrial Design Registration No. 3-2000-00528 should be cancelled~ •

1 Filipino residing at Poblacion II, Sta. Teresita, Batangas. See Exhibit "2". 2 Complainant-Appellant is of legal age, Filipino, and residing at Barangay Bangin, San Nicolas, Batangas. See Appellant's Appeal Memorandum dated 12 March 2004, page 1.

Page 1 of 16 SANDOVAL VS. BISCOCHO

OfC 0 7 2004

• ,,.,' J \ ,

Records show that on 25 May 2001, Appellant initially filed with the

Bureau of Legal Affairs a Complaint for Infringement of Industrial Design.

Although the Appellees already filed an Answer with Counterclaim on 21 June

2001, Appellant, however, filed a Notice of Appearance with Motion with Leave to

Withdraw First Complaint Filed and to Admit Attached Amended Complaint on 12

July 2001. The Amended Complaint was for Infringement of Patent and of

Copyright and Related Rights with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction or a

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), and alleged the following, to wit:3

1. Appellant is the maker/designer and registered owner of an industrial

design (ornamental wall decor) entitled "GODDESS OF FORTUNE AND

GOODWILL" covered by Certificate of Registration No. 3-2000-00528.

2. The ornamental design is also recorded, registered and deposited with

The National Library as shown by the Certificate of Copyright Registration

and Deposit No. G-2000-234 issued on 22 September 2000.

3. Immediately after 21 September 2000, the filing date of his application for

registration of an Industrial Design and also of his application for Copyright

Registration and Deposit, Appellant commenced the making, production,

distribution and sale to the public of the aforestated product/article.

4. Sometime in February 2001, Appellant discovered that the Appellees were

making, producing, distributing, offering for sale and actually selling to » . 3 Appellant's Amended Complaint dated 11 July 2001, pages 1-2.


ner n 7 ?ML

c

, , "

public for profit/commercial purposes a product/article bearing or

embodying a design which is a copy or imitation, or substantially a copy or

imitation, of the protected product/article of Appellant without his consent

and authority.

5. Appellant confronted the Appellees about the matter and demanded that

they stop and refrain from further doing so but the latter refused and

continuously refused to do so for no justifiable reason.

6. The malicious and unwarranted acts of the Appellees constitute acts of

infringement in clear violation of the intellectual property rights of the

Appellant. As a patentee and holder of an industrial design registration

and a copyright holder as well, the Appellant is duly entitled to the fullest

protection of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual

Property Code, and its implementing guidelines.

Appellant sought the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary

injunction, alleging that the continuous conduct of the Appellees in making,

producing, distributing, offering for sale, and actually selling to the public of a

copied or imitated product causes him grave and irreparable injury."

In their Amended Answers, the Appellees denied the material allegations

of the complaint and sought the dismissal of the case for lack of cause of action

on the ground that Appellant is not the author, maker or designer of thJ~ ~

4 Appellant's Amended Complaint, supra, page 3. rr 5 Appellee's Amended Answer with Counterclaims dated 19 September 2001, page 1-3.

Page 3 of 16 SANDOVALVS. BISCOCHO

~,.,.. n ., "fl'"

" , '."1 , "

contested work. The Appellees claimed that the Appellant just borrowed the wall

decor from somebody else, copied it, and immediately, thereafter, reproduced

the same in commercial quantities intended for sale to the public and actually

engaged in actual sale thereof. According to the Appellees, the Appellant, not

being the true designer and maker thereof, has not presented any evidence

showing his authority from the original creator, believed to be of foreign and

medieval origin, of such design much less, with knowledge and consent of the

person from whom he borrowed the same.

The Appellees also contended that given the availability of the subject wall

decor in the market for a long period of time which is even prior to the Appellant's

patent application, and coupled with the Appellant's erroneous and self-serving

proclamation to be the author of such creation, the latter cannot claim exclusive

right to use the same since the irrevocable rights thereon become vested to the

public in general.

On 23 December 2003, the Director rendered the assailed Decision. The

(; pertinent portion of which reads as follows, to wit:

"For the above reasons, this Office finds and so holds that Complainant's industrial design is not new, having been anticipated by prior art, hence, should be cancelled in accordance with Sec. 10.2 (b) (vi) of the IP Code and Rule 12, Section 1 (~ of the Rules and Regulations on Administrative Complaints for Violation ofLaws Involving Intellectual Property Rights.

"WHEREFORE, it appearing that Complainant's work is neither new nor original, Respondent's use of a similar work cannot constitute infringement of copyright and/or industrial design. Accordingly, the instant complaint filed by Complainant is hereby DISMISSED, and Cert. Industrial Design Registration No.


nrr n7 '004

-,

, , '., , .

3-2000-000528 issued CANCELLED.

by this Office on March 15, 2001 is hereby ordered

"Let the filewrapper of the design patent subject matter of the instant case be forwarded to the Administrative. Financial and Human Resources Development Service Bureau for appropriate action in accordance with this Decision, with a copy thereof to be furnished the Bureau of Patents for information and update of its record."

Consequently, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal together with the appeal

fee on 28 January 2004. Noting that the mode of appeal pursued by the

Appellant was not in accordance with Section 3 of the IPO Uniform Rules on

Appeal", this Office issued an Order dated 29 January 2004 giving the Appellant

not later than 13 February 2004 to file the required appeal memorandum. The

Appellant filed a Motion for Time Extension to File Appeal Memorandum on 10

March 2004, seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from 13 February

2004 or until 14 March 2004, within which to file the appeal memorandum. In the

interest of substantial justice, this Office per Order dated 24 February 2004 gave

Appellant up to 05 March 2004 to file his appeal memorandum and to pay the

corresponding fee in filing the motion, as well as the applicable surcharge for late

payment of fees.

On 10 March 2004, the Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration

claiming that his non-compliance to the aforesaid order was due to the lapses in

communication when he transferred to his new office in Laguna. He asked that

this Office reconsider its Order dated 24 February 2004 and allow him to file the

Appeal Memorandum on or before 14 March 2004. The Appellant, however, fil~

6 Office Order No. 12, series of 2002. Page 5 of 16

SANDOVAL VS. BISCOCHO

___ ..... ",1IIiiiII.

the Appeal Memorandum on 15 March 2004. On 31 March 2004, this Office

issued an Order giving Appellees thirty (30) days from receipt thereof to file their

Comment to the Appeal Memorandum and at the same time ordering the Director

to forward the records of the case within the aforementioned period.

In his appeal, the Appellant contends that the Director gravely erred in:?

1) totally disregarding and ignoring the fact that Appellant is a registered

owner of a Certificate of Patent Registration issued by the Intellectual

Property Office, and therefore, entitled to the full protection of R.A. 8293

and its Implementing Guidelines; and

2) holding that the industrial design of Appellant is neither new or original

having been anticipated by a prior art and hence should be cancelled.

In their Comment filed on 30 April 2004, Appellees argued that this Office

should not have given the Appellant additional period until 05 March 2004 to file

his appeal memorandum because the decision of the Director dismissing the

c complaint and ordering the cancellation of the industrial design registration had

attained finality by that time." The Appellees posits that having sufficiently

established that the subject wall decor is not new or original, it is understandable

that the Director found no difficulty in rejecting the Appellant's claims. According

to the Appellees, the verdict of the Director is fully supported by SUbstant~.

7 Appellant's Appeal Memorandum dated 12 March 2004, page 6 and 7. 8 Appellee's Comment to the Appeal Memorandum, supra, page 4.


ere 0 i 2004

, . , , ,

evidence and that she had not acted whimsically and with grave abuse of

discretion."

Meanwhile, the Appellees filed a Motion to Defer Resolution of Appeal on

09 July 2004. According to the Appellees, they have a pending Motion for [partial]

Reconsideration of the appealed Decision in the BlA which should be first

resolved. Denying said motion." this Office held that it has acquired jurisdiction

over the case on appeal and the Director has already forwarded the entire

records of the case. Also, the records show that the Appellee participated in the

proceedings by filing their Comment and subsequently, their Memorandum and

Draft Decision.

After consideration of the foregoing and review of the records of this case,

this Office finds the appeal devoid of merit.

On the procedural issue raised by the Appellees, this Office holds that the

matter should be tempered with reason. In this instance, the Supreme Court has

held that the court has discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss an appeal. It is a

power conferred on the court, not a duty. The discretion must be a sound one, to

be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind

the circumstances obtaining in each case. Technicalities, as much as possible,

should be avoided. The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of

justice. The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice. A litigation is no~£.

9 Appellee's Comment to the Appeal Memorandum dated 30 April 2004, page 7. rr 10 Order issued on 02 August 2004.


~r 07 !ff04

" ,"

a game of technicalities. Law suits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's

thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and

becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from

courts. Litigations must be decided on their merits and not on technicality. Every

party litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just

determination of his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities.

Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where

the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the

rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules

of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice. It is a

far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical

lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of

justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice

to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while

actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice."

As to the main issues, this Office agrees with the Director that the

Appellees cannot be held liable for infringement of copyright and industrial design

in this case. As observed by the Director, indeed, with respect to the element o~·

11 Aguam YS. CA, 332 SCRA 784, 31 May 2000; Citing Catindig YS. CA, 88 SCRA 675, 680 [1979]; PNB YS. Philippine Milling Co., Inc., 26 SCRA 712,715 [1969]; Maqui YS. CA, 69 SCRA 368,374 [1969]; Haberer YS. CA, 104 SCRA 543 [1981]; Gregorio vs. CA, 72 SCRA 120 [1990]; Alonso YS. Viiiamor, 16 Phil. 315, 322 [1910]; Aguinaldo YS. Aguinaldo, 36 SCRA 137,141 [1970]; CanIas YS. CA, 164 SCRA 160, 180 [1988]; American Express International, Inc. vs. lAC, 167 SCRA 209, 221 [1988]; Tan Boon Bee & Co., Inc. YS. Judge Jarencio, 163 SCRA 205, 213 [1988]; citing De las Alas YS. CA, 83 SCRA 200,216, [1978] and Heirs of Ceferino Morales YS.

CA, 67 SCRA 304,310 [1975]; Nerves YS. CSC, 276 SCRA 610,617 [1997]; A-One Feeds, Inc. YS. CA, 100 SCRA 590,594 [1980]; American Home Insurance CO. YS. CA, 109 SCRA 180 [1981] concurring opinion, citing Gregorio YS. CA, supra; Catindig YS. CA, supra, page 681 and Nerves YS. CSC, supra; Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, 1999 ed., 570.


OEe 0 7 2004

, ' '.,

copying, there is no question that the works of Appellant and Appellees are

similar. As correctly pointed out by the Director, during the pre-trial conference,

Appellees admitted that they are making, producing, distributing, offering for sale

and actually selling to the public for profit/commercial purposes a product/article

bearing or embodying a design which is a copy or imitation, or substantially a

copy or imitation, of the protected product/article of the Appellant, without the

latter's consent. Appellee Liberato Biscocho even declared in his testimony that

he only copied the wall decor sometime in the year 2000 from an existing work of

another person whose name he could not recall." On this note, this Office

concur with the Appellee's assertions that the Appellant has no cause of action

against them because he is not the author, maker or designer of the contested

wall decor. The Appellees were able to submit evidence to show that the subject

wall decor, which varies in name and representations, had been in the market

long before the Appellant applied his "creation" for patent registration on 21

September 2000 and that there are numerous identical and strikingly similar

designs available in the market depicting the same images and style subject

matter of Appellant's patented wall cecor." The Appellees presented

documentary and testimonial evidence, specifically, Plate No. 13, which was

derived from page 379 of Encyclopedia Britannica (15th edition) showing the

Image of Helios. One of the paintings illustrated therein is a ceiling fresco painted

by Guido Reni (1613-1614) called the "Aurora", which is presently displayed in

IF' 12 Decision supra, page 4; citing Pre-Trial Order NO.2001-67 dated 21 November 2001 and TSN dated 09 October 2001, pages 42-45. 13 Appellee's Amended Answer dated 19 September 2001, page 2.


f'~r n7 20D4

" I'. .'

the Casino Rospigliosi, Rome." The Appellant's design and the image of the

aforementioned painting, are reproduced below for comparison:

Front View of the Appellant's Wall Decor (Exhibit"A")

Image of Helios, the sun God, (Plate No. 13) derived from Encyclopedia Britanica, 15th edition, page 379

(Exhibit "1-Rebuttal")

It can be gleaned from the foregoing pictures that they are similar in all

aspects. This Office agrees with the Director that both of them show a female

character leading a procession of several characters consisting of a man riding a

chariot that is pulled by several horses and surrounded by seven (7) other female

figures. A representation of an angel also appears on

portion of both lmaqes."

the upper right hand

14 Exhibit "1-Rebuttal". 15 Decision supra, page 6.


nt?C 0 7 2884

, ,I,.,

Adding substance to the foregoing observation is the statement of the

Appellant's witness, Irmina S. India, which suggests that the Appellant's work is

similar with the "Aurora" of Guido Reni, to wit:

"ATTY. DIMAILlG: Now, would you kindly tell me what is the similarity between Exhibit 'A', that colored picture that I have there and this one? Let me show you again Exhibit 'A', the picture I have shown you. What is the similarity? Are they exactly similar? WITNESS : Opo. ATTY. DIMAILIG : And could you kindly read the information indicated on the right bottom side ofthat picture? WITNESS : Aurora Ceiling Fresco by: Guido Reni. ATTY. DIMAILIG : OK, and then? WITNESS : 1613-14, In the casino Rispigliosi, Rome." 16

The Appellant advances the argument that he came up with the wall decor

design based on the idea that horses bring good luck. He also declared that a

certain Pastor Dadula assisted him in coming up with the desiqn." However, the

Appellant failed to provide an answer when asked to discuss the meaning of the

other characters in the wall decor. Instead, he declared that his only contribution

was in the design of the horses and the rest was by Rolando Dadula, to Wi~.

16 See Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated 28 AUgust 2002, pages 55-56. 17 Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated 27 September 2001, pages 7-9, pertinent portions read, to wit: "ATTY. BARRAMEDA : Your Honor please, we would like to make it of record that this witness herein is referring to a picture which is already attached to the complaint. He is actually referring to a wall decor. Now Mr. Witness, how did you come up with that design or that wall decor? Pano ka nakabuo ng design na ganyan? WITNESS: Kasi nga po ang trabaho namin dati nga scaiola. Ngayon po yung design na ito po bale napagtulungan po namin ng aking kasama. Ngayon po dahil sa tagal naming sa aming trabaho dahil kasi po nakikita naming yung mga kabayo swerte raw sa bahay. Ngayon kami bale magkasama nito palagi ay gusto gumawa kami ng isang design na binuo namin sa tulong namin na yung alam nya pinagtugma-tugma naming hanggang sa nabuo naming yung design. ATTY. BARRAMEDA : Now, you are referring to a person. What is the name of this person who according to you, assisted you in coming up with this design? Sinong tao yung tinutukoy mo? WITNESS : Kasama ko po ngayon. ATTY. BARRAMEDA : What is his name? Anong pangalan? WITNESS : Pastor Dadula po, Rev. Pastor Dadula po."


OEe 0 7 2004

,• , j j ',.. •

"ATTY. DIMAILIG : Now, you made mention also in your direct testimony that bits and pieces of horses, chariots, have been taken together in order to form, what you now claim as the ornamental decor you named Goddess ofGoodwill and Fortune. Do you attribute any significance on the horses, on the chariot, on the angel that I have seen in the photocopy depicting the actual ornamental design? Ang ibig kong sabihin sa pagke-create mo, sa paglikha mo ng nasabing wall decor, mayroong mga kabayo akong nakita noon, may mga anghel na nalipad, meron ka bang ibig sabihin sa mga ito? WITNESS : Meron po. ATTY. DIMAILIG : Itong kabayo, anong ibig sabihin nito? WITNESS : Kasi po ang kabayo po sa pagkakaalam ko kasi, kadalasan kong nakikitang display sa mga bahay ang kabayo, swerte raw po iyon. ATTY. DIMAILIG : Swerte? WITNESS : Opo. ATTY. DIMAILIG : How about yung anghel? ATTY. BARRAMEDA : Anong significance noon? Ano ang gusto mong ipahiwatig doon? Sakit mo ipinasok yung anghel doon sa disenyo? Ano ang purpose mo? ATTY. DIMAILIG : Pwede naming isingit ang Diyos diyan, bakit anghel? WITNESS: Yoon daw po ang Iiwanag. ATTY. DIMAILIG : Ang anghel. WITNESS: Opo. • ATTY. DIMAILIG : Sinong may sabi sa yong anghel ang liwanag? WITNESS : Dahil ganito po yon, yon pong disenyo nabuo namin, hindi ng ako lang. ATTY. DIMAILIG : I know. Sinong nag-recommend? WITNESS : Yun pong aking kasama. ATTY. DIMAILIG : Do you know who is this companion? WITNESS : Rolando. Pastor Dadula (sic). ATTY. DIMAILIG : How about the people who surrounds the chariot being carried by this horse or horses? Anong ibig sabihin ng mga taong yan? What do they signify, their presence here? ATTY. BARRAMEDA : Ang tinutukoy ni Attorney, itong mga taong ito, ano ang purpose niyan bakit mo isiningit yan? Ano ang gusto mong ipahiwatig diyan? WITNESS : Eto po bale ang aming design na ito ay ang nakakaalam po ng ibig sabihin nito ay ang aking kasama. Siya po kasi ang nagdesign. Ang design ko lang po dito ay kabayo." 18

Accordingly, the Copyright Law protects only works that are original to the

author. As such, original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the

work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from oth~.

18 See Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated 27 September 2001, pages 46-49. Page 12 of 16

SANDOVAL VS. BISCOCHO

DEC 0 72004

'. , I ", ' ) ':

works) and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.'? In a

nutshell, the works must have their origin in the labor of the author."

This Office, therefore, yields to the observation of the Director that it

cannot give credence to the rather obscure testimony of Rolando Dadula.

Indeed, it is peculiar that the alleged combined efforts of Appellant and Rolando

Dadula in coming up with a wall decor design would result to something that is

exactly similar or identical to a complex and intricate 16th century baroque

painting - with the same number of characters, same position of figures and

arrangement of elements up to their minutest details, and essentially depicting

the same scene or overall impression which Appellee presented as Exhibit "1

Rebuttal". There is no other conclusion that the wall decor that Appellant claims

to be his original work is a mere copy of an already pre-existing work.21

The argument of the Appellant that in addition to the Certificate of

Copyright Registration and Deposit No. G2000-23422 dated 22 September 2000,

he was also issued an Industrial Design Registration No. 3-2000-0052823 , is of

~ no moment. The law is clear that only new or original industrial designs are

protected." and that an invention shall not be considered new if it forms part of a

prior art.25 Aptly, prior art shall consist of everything which has been made

available to the public anywhere in the world, before the filing date or the pri/forit ~y

19 Amador, Copyright Under the Intellectual Property Code, 1998 edition, page 28. 20 Amador, Copyright Under the Intellectual Property Code, supra, page 27. 21 Decision supra, page 11. 22 Exhibit "B". 23 Exhibit "A-4". 24 Section 113.1, IP Code. 25 Section 23, IP Code.


,/ .. , : ~ .~ " \

r

date of the application claiming the mventlon." As correctly pointed out by the

Director, an industrial design shall not be considered new if it differs from prior

designs in minor respects that it can be mistaken as such prior designs by an

ordinary observer."

Under the law, "original" has special reference to inventive genius in

creating design, that is, the inventor must have created a design that is

essentially different and superior to that might be created by person skilled in the

art. Mere exercise of routinary skill does not amount to design invention. It was

held that to constitute a new design that is patentable, it had to be so different

from all other existing before, as to have appeared to have been such to ordinary

observer. On the same token, it was held that mere differences or variation in

form, however pleasant and appealing, do not of themselves constitute

patentable differentiation. What is required is that the design shows some

originality beyond the competency of the routine designer, some

characteristically different effect not suggested by the prior art or conventional

formal variation which every designer or craftsman employs in the normal

() performance of his functlons."

Precisely, as the Director held, the novelty of a design is to be tested, not

by investigation of the means employed for its creation, but by ocular comparison

" Section 24.1, IP Code. /P'27 Decision supra, page 12; citing Gorham Co, vs. White, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511 (1871). 28 Amador, Patents Under the Intellectual Property Code. 2001 edition, page 772; citing Ex Parte Case No. 213, Re: Appeal from Final Rejection of Application by Patent Examiner, 03 February 1988.


ner n71n04

, " .... , 'l'~ .~,

of the design itself with prior designs, which are alleged to be substantially the

same. Truly, the subject for consideration is not the process of creation, but the

effect produced upon the eye by the thing created. What is required is that the

design shows such originality, which may not be within the competence of the

routine designer. To be patentable the design should display a characteristically

different effect not suggested by the prior art.29

For these reasons, this Office finds that the industrial design of the

Appellant is not new for it forms part of a prior art. The subject wall decor does

not show any significant disparity if compared with the "Aurora" ceiling fresco of

Guido Reni painted during the years of 1613-1614,30 long before the Appellant's

alleged date of creation and publication on 08 August 200031 and application for

Industrial Design Registration on 21 September 2000.32

WHEREFORE, premises considered, there is no cogent reason to disturb

Decision No. 2003-03 dated 23 December 2003 rendered by the Director of the

Bureau of Legal Affairs. Accordingly, the instant appeal is DENIED and the

" appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of

Legal Affairs for appropriate action, and the records be returned to her for proper

disposition. Further, let the Directors of the Bureau of Patents, the

29 Decision, supra, page 12; citing Co San vs. Jose Lian Bio, Decision No. 108, 15 March 195ff. and Ex Parte Sy Pio Lato, Decision No. 88-7,03 February 1988.. 30 Exhibit "1-Rebuttal". 31 Exhibit "B". 32 Exhibit "A-2" and "A-3".


I . .' ... ,. . ,", \

. "" Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau and the

Administrative, Financial and Human Resource Development Service Bureau be

furnished copies hereof for information and/or appropriate action.

SO ORDERED.

DeC 0 7 2004, Makati City, Philippines.

~IJlI'lI.A ~~NCISCO Director General

Page 16 of 16 SANDOVALVS. BISCOCHO

intellectual property office of the · pdf filesandoval vs. biscocho . ofc . ... protection of...

Documents