Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Tarroza
G.R. No. L-20354
July 28, 1969
FACTS: This is an appeal from a decision of the Director of Patents denying
the petition for the cancellation of Utility Model Letters Patent No. 62 in favor
of respondent Felipe Tarroza for his Side Tilting-Dumping Wheelbarrow.
From the description of the side tilting-dumping wheelbarrow, respondents
product possesses what the statute refers to as "practical utility." The
requirement explicitly set forth in the statute has thus been met, therefore,
respondent Tarroza is entitled to its benefits. The grant to him of a patent for
a utility model is in accordance with law. There was no reason, therefore, for
its cancellation.
Petitioner Gerardo Samson, Jr was also a prior grantee of Utility Model Patent
No. 27 for a Dumping and Detachable Wheelbarrow, which he claims to have
been infringed by the respondent, they being neighbors.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents Utility Model Patent deserves
cancellation.
HELD: No. There is an express recognition under the Patent Law that any
new model of implements or tools or of any industrial product even if not
possessed of the quality of invention but which is of practical utility is
entitled to a patent for a utility model: From the description of the side of
tilting-dumping wheelbarrow, the product of ingenuity and industry, it is
quite apparent that it has a place in the market and possesses what the
statute refers to as practical utility.
Moreover, in appeals from a decision of the Director of Patents, only
questions of law may be reviewed, findings of facts being conclusive unless
unsupported by substantial evidence. As was emphasized in Bagano v.
Director of Patents: "It is almost trite to state here that in cases of the nature
as the one at bar, only questions of law are to be raised in order that this
Court could exercise its appellate jurisdiction and review the decision." The
above well-settled doctrines suffice to demonstrate that this petition for
review, as noted at the outset, is without merit. Decision is affirmed with
costs against the petitioner.
advantage of the favorable opinion formed by the public of the quality and
standard of the watches sold by that firm under the trade name adopted by
it for advertising purposes, and as a guaranty to the public that such
watches have passed through its hands and are up to the standard set by it
for watches advertised and sold as Meridian watches.
There is no error in the proceedings prejudicial to the rights of the accused.
The judgment entered in the court below should therefore be affirmed, with
the costs of this instance against the appellant.
the trade name is to be used. In such cases, therefore, no trade name can
exist.
The two claims of the plaintiff are identical; for there could have been no
contraction brought about by popular expression except after long lapse of
time. The contraction of the phrase in to the word would create no rights,
there being no registration, unless it resulted from long use.
Even admitting that the word Isabela may have been appropriable by
plaintiff as a trade name at the time it began to use it, the evidence showing
that it had been exclusively appropriated by the plaintiff would have to be
very strong to establish the fact of appropriation and the right to exclusive
use. The law as it stands and has stood since the Royal Decree of 1888
prohibits the use of a geographical name as a trade name. The judgment
appealed from is reversed.