Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case Study No. 7 - Local - Copyright Infringement - Reymart - Ruiz

    Uploaded by

    Reymart Ruiz
    2 views2 pages

    Original Title

    Case Study No. 7_Local_Copyright Infringement_Reymart_Ruiz

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    2 views2 pages

    Case Study No. 7 - Local - Copyright Infringement - Reymart - Ruiz

    Uploaded by

    Reymart Ruiz

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    SANRIO COMPANY LIMITED, petitioner, vs. EDGAR C.

    LIM, doing business as


    ORIGNAMURA TRADING, respondent.

    This petition for review on certiorari 1 seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of
    Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 74660 2 and its resolution 3 denying reconsideration.

    Petitioner Sanrio Company Limited, a Japanese corporation, owns the copyright of


    various animated characters such as "Hello Kitty," "Little Twin Stars," "My Melody,"
    "Tuxedo Sam" and "Zashikibuta" among others. 4 While it is not engaged in business in
    the Philippines, its products are sold locally by its exclusive distributor, Gift Gate
    Incorporated (GGI). As such exclusive distributor, GGI entered into licensing
    agreements with JC Lucas Creative Products, Inc., Paper Line Graphics, Inc. and
    Melawares Manufacturing Corporation. These local entities were allowed to
    manufacture certain products (bearing petitioner's copyrighted animated characters) for
    the local market. IESAac Sometime in 2001, due to the deluge of counterfeit Sanrio
    products, GGI asked IP Manila Associates (IPMA) to conduct a market research. The
    research's objective was to identify those factories, department stores and retail outlets
    manufacturing and/or selling fake Sanrio items. 7 After conducting several test-buys in
    various commercial areas, IPMA confirmed that respondent's Orignamura Trading in
    Tutuban Center, Manila was selling imitations of petitioner's products. Consequently, on
    May 29, 2000, IPMA agents Lea A. Carmona and Arnel P. Dausan executed a joint
    affidavit attesting to the aforementioned facts. After conducting the requisite searching
    inquiry, the executive judge issued a search warrant on May 30, 2000. On the same
    day, agents of the NBI searched the premises of Orignamura Trading. As a result
    thereof, they were able to seize various Sanrio products.

    On September 25, 2002, the TAPP found that: Evidence on record would show that
    respondent bought his merchandise from legitimate sources, as shown by official
    receipts issued by JC Lucas Creative Products, Inc., Paper Line Graphics, Inc. and
    Melawares Manufacturing Corporation. In fact, in her letter dated May 23, 2002, Ms.
    Ma. Angela S. Garcia certified that JC Lucas Creative Products, Inc., Paper Line
    Graphics, Inc. and Melawares Manufacturing Corporation are authorized to produce
    certain Sanrio products. While it appears that some of the items seized during the
    search are not among those products which GGI authorized these establishments to
    produce, the fact remains that respondent bought these from the abovecited legitimate
    sources. At this juncture, it bears stressing that respondent relied on the representations
    of these manufacturers and distributors that the items they sold were genuine. As such,
    it is not incumbent upon respondent to verify from these sources what items GGI only
    authorized them to produce. Thus, as far as respondent is concerned, the items in his
    possession are not infringing copies of the original petitioner's products. (emphasis
    supplied) Thus, in a resolution dated September 25, 2002, it dismissed the complaint
    due to insufficiency of evidence. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied.
    22 Hence, it filed a petition for review in the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor of the
    DOJ. 23 In a resolution dated August 29, 2003, 24 the Office of the Chief State
    Prosecutor affirmed the TAPP resolution. The petition was dismissed for lack of
    reversible error.

    In a preliminary investigation, a public prosecutor determines whether a crime has been


    committed and whether there is probable cause that the accused is guilty thereof. 33
    Probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that will engender a well-
    founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably
    guilty thereof and should be held for trial. 34 Because a public prosecutor is the one
    conducting a preliminary investigation, he determines the existence of probable cause.
    Consequently, the decision to file a criminal information in court or to dismiss a
    complaint depends on his sound discretion.
    As a general rule, a public prosecutor is afforded a wide latitude of discretion in the
    conduct of a preliminary investigation. For this reason, courts generally do not interfere
    with the results of such proceedings. A prosecutor alone determines the sufficiency of
    evidence that will establish probable cause justifying the filing of a criminal information
    against the respondent. By way of exception, however, judicial review is allowed where
    respondent has clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of
    discretion. Otherwise stated, such review is appropriate only when the prosecutor has
    exercised his discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by
    reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough to amount to an
    evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. ESaITA
    The prosecutors in this case consistently found that no probable cause existed against
    respondent for violation of the IPC. They were in the best position to determine whether
    or not there was probable cause. We find that they arrived at their findings after
    carefully evaluating the respective evidence of petitioner and respondent. Their
    conclusion was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.


    Costs against petitioner.
    SO ORDERED.
    Puno, C.J., Azcuna and Leonardo-de Castro, JJ., concur.
    Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., took no part. My daughter, a Senior State Prosecutor from the
    DOJ, issued the initial Res.

    Reference: Jur.ph. Jur. (n.d.). https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/facts/sanrio-co-ltd-v-lim#_

    You might also like