CO SAN ALIAS CO KING CHONG, RECURRENTE Y APELANTE, CONTRA CELEDONIO AGRAVA, COMO DIRECTOR DE LA OFICINA DE PATENTES, Y JOSE ONG LIAN BIO, RECURRIDOS Y APELADOS.

La cuestion legal que la apelacion plantea es si el Director de la
Oficina de Patentes tiene facultad para considerar la cancelacion de
patentes de diseños industriales que ha librado cuando se alega que no
son nuevos y originates, sino meras copias de los que el mocionante
viene usando en los articulos que manufactura y que estan tornados de
catalogos impresos de manufactureros americanos de articulos identicos.

Se trata de unas franjas ornamentales en los bordes de maletines de
viaje por las que el Director de Patentes concedio dos patentes de
diseno industrial al recurrido Jose Ong Lian Bio, sin previa
notification publica o privada. Habiendose enterado de las patentes a
los tres meses de concedidas, el recurrente acudio al Director de
Patentes pidiendo la cancelacion de las mismas por los motivos arriba
brevemente mencionados, pero, a motion del recurrido Ong, el Director
sobreseyo la petition ppr creerse sin autoridad legal para considerarla.
Contra esta resolution el recurrente apelo para ante esta Cqrte de
conformidad con los articulos 61 al 66 de la Ley de la Republica No.
165.

La expedition de patentes de disenos industriales esta regulada por
el articulo 55 de la Ley citada, que dice asi, segxin esta enmendado:

“SEC. 55. Design patents and patents for utility models.—(a)
Any new, original, and ornamental design for an article or manufacture
and (b) any new model of implements or tools or of any
industrial product, or of part of the same, which does not possess the
quality of invention, but which is of practical utility by reason of its
form, configuration, construction or composition, may be protected by
the author thereof, the former by a patent for a design and the latter
by a patent for a utility model, in the same manner subject to the same
provisions and requirements as relate to patents for inventions in so
far as they are applicable, except as otherwise herein provided.

“The standard of novelty established by section nine thereof for
inventions shall apply to ornamental designs.

“A utility model shall not be considered ‘new’ if, before the
application for a patent, it has been publicly known or publicly used in
this country, or has been described in a printed publication or
publications circulated within the country, or if it is substantially
similar to any other utility model so known, used or described within
the country.

“Applications for design patents and patents for utility models
shall be subject to interference proceedings as authorized in section
ten of this Act, as amended by section one of Republic Act Numbered Six
hundred and thirty-seven.

“Patents for designs and for utility models shall be subject to
compulsory license as authorized in section thirty-four of this Act.
They shall not be subject to the payment of annual fees provided for
invention patents in Chapter V hereof.”—Republic Act No. 165, as amended
by Republic Act No. 637, and further amended by Republic Act No. 864,
section 1.

Y el articulo 28 de dicha ley, segun esta enmendado, dice:

“SEC. 28. General grounds for cancellation.—Any person
may on payment of the required fee petition the Director within three
years from the date of publication of the issue of the patent in the Official
Gazette, to cancel the patent or any claim thereof, on any of the
following grounds:

(a) That the invention is not new or patentable in
accordance with sections seven, eight, and nine, or that the design or
utility model is not new or patentable under section fifty-five thereof;

(b) That the specification in the case of an invention
does not comply with the requirement of section fourteen, Chapter III
hereof; or

(c) That the person to whom the patent was issued was hot
the true and actual inventor, designer or author of the utility model
or did not derive his rights from the true and actual inventor, designer
or author of the utility model.”—Republic Act No. 165, as amended by
Republic Act No. 864, section 2.

Este articulo es aplicable a este caso, no solo porque concierne al
procedimiento de cancelacion de patentes de disenos industriales
indebidamente expedidos, sino tambien porque refleja la correcta
interpretacion del articulo 55 de la Ley, en el tiempo en que se
presento la peticion de cancelacion de patentes de disenos industriales,
en relacion con los articulos que Ie preceden de la misma ley.

En virtud de lo expuesto, se revoca la decision apelada. y se
devuelve el asunto para ulteriores tramites de acuerdo con la ley, con
las costas al recurrente Ong en esta instancia. Descartese al Director
de Patentes como parte recurrida en esta apelacion. Asi se ordena.

Paras, Pres., Pablo, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo,
Labrador, y Concepcion, MM., estan conformes.

Se revoca la decision y se devuelve el asunto para ulteriores
tramites de acuerdo com la ley.