Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Parke, Davis & Co. vs. Doctors' Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Parke, Davis & Co. vs. Doctors' Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
*
No. L-27361. May 29, 1981.
________________
* SECOND DIVISION
701
702
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001735850a0ce66b9f1b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
7/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 104
704
“x x x x x x.
“After a careful consideration of the arguments for and against
the motion to dismiss, and in view of the fact that the substance
covered by Letters Patent No. 50 and Letters Patent No. 279 is
the same and that is, the substance known as ‘Chloramphenicol’,
because while under Letters Patent No. 50, the substance is
referred to as ‘Chloramphenicol’, in Letters Patent No. 279; THE
SUBSTANCE HAS BEEN DENOMINATED AS ‘Chloramphenicol
Palmitate’ yet it is the opinion of the Court that ‘Chloramphenicol’
and ‘Chloramphenicol Palmitate’ are the same, the difference
being merely in the taste, and this Court to state that there was
infringement of Patent with respect to Letters Patent No. 279
would be tantamount to preventing the defendant, Doctors’
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., from exercising the right granted it by
Letters Patent No. 50. It would further render nugatory the
decision of the Director of Patents, affirmed by the Supreme
Court, granting the defendant, Doctor’s Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the
right to use and import ‘Chloramphenicol’.
“The defendant, V-Lab Drughouse Corporation being merely a
sales representative of the defendant, Doctors’ Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., and the Court being of the opinion that there is no cause of
action with respect to the principal defendant, is likewise of the
opinion that there is no cause of action with respect to the
defendant, V-Lab Drughouse Corporation.
706
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001735850a0ce66b9f1b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
7/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 104
708
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001735850a0ce66b9f1b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
7/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 104
“In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of unfair
competition, the following shall be deemed guilty of unfair
competition:
x x x x x x
“(c) Any person who shall make any false statement in the
course of trade x x x.”
_______________
709
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001735850a0ce66b9f1b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
7/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 104
——o0o——
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001735850a0ce66b9f1b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
7/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 104
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001735850a0ce66b9f1b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11