Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    B3 Sanrio Company Vs Lim

    Uploaded by

    BoletPascua
    Sanrio Company Limited owns copyrights to characters like Hello Kitty. It filed a complaint with the Task Force on Anti-Intellectual Property Poracy (TAPP) against Edgar Lim for selling counterfeit Sanrio products. TAPP dismissed due to lack of evidence. Sanrio appealed but the dismissal was affirmed. Sanrio then filed a petition for certiorari which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on grounds of prescription. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the filing of the complaint with TAPP tolled the prescriptive period, so the alleged violation had not prescribed. Filing a complaint for preliminary investigation interrupts the period of criminal responsibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    B3 Sanrio Company Vs Lim

    Uploaded by

    BoletPascua
    1K views2 pages
    Sanrio Company Limited owns copyrights to characters like Hello Kitty. It filed a complaint with the Task Force on Anti-Intellectual Property Poracy (TAPP) against Edgar Lim for selling counterfeit Sanrio products. TAPP dismissed due to lack of evidence. Sanrio appealed but the dismissal was affirmed. Sanrio then filed a petition for certiorari which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on grounds of prescription. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the filing of the complaint with TAPP tolled the prescriptive period, so the alleged violation had not prescribed. Filing a complaint for preliminary investigation interrupts the period of criminal responsibility.

    Original Description:

    Commercial Law Intellectual Property Code

    Original Title

    B3 Sanrio Company vs Lim

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sanrio Company Limited owns copyrights to characters like Hello Kitty. It filed a complaint with the Task Force on Anti-Intellectual Property Poracy (TAPP) against Edgar Lim for selling counterfeit Sanrio products. TAPP dismissed due to lack of evidence. Sanrio appealed but the dismissal was affirmed. Sanrio then filed a petition for certiorari which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on grounds of prescription. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the filing of the complaint with TAPP tolled the prescriptive period, so the alleged violation had not prescribed. Filing a complaint for preliminary investigation interrupts the period of criminal responsibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    B3 Sanrio Company Vs Lim

    Uploaded by

    BoletPascua
    Sanrio Company Limited owns copyrights to characters like Hello Kitty. It filed a complaint with the Task Force on Anti-Intellectual Property Poracy (TAPP) against Edgar Lim for selling counterfeit Sanrio products. TAPP dismissed due to lack of evidence. Sanrio appealed but the dismissal was affirmed. Sanrio then filed a petition for certiorari which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on grounds of prescription. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the filing of the complaint with TAPP tolled the prescriptive period, so the alleged violation had not prescribed. Filing a complaint for preliminary investigation interrupts the period of criminal responsibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    168662 February 19, 2008

    SANRIO COMPANY LIMITED, petitioner,


    vs.
    EDGAR C. LIM, doing business as ORIGNAMURA TRADING, respondent.

    FACTS

    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. While it is not engaged in business in the Philippines, its products are sold locally by its exclusive
    distributor, Gift Gate Incorporated (GGI).

    Sometime in 2001, due to the deluge of counterfeit Sanrio products, GGI asked IP Manila Associates (IPMA) to
    conduct a market research to identify those factories, department stores and retail outlets manufacturing
    and/or selling fake Sanrio items. 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.

    The petitioner, Sanrio filed a complaint-affidavit with the Task-Force on Anti-Intellectual Property Poracy
    (TAPP) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Respondent for violation of Section 27 on the Intellectual
    Property Code. The TAPP dismissed the complaint due to insufficiency of evidence.

    Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, it filed a petition for review in the Office of the
    Chief State Prosecutor of the DOJ. In a resolution dated August 29, 2003, the Office of the Chief State
    Prosecutor affirmed the TAPP resolution. The petition was dismissed for lack of reversible error.

    Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the CA. On May 3, 2005, the appellate court dismissed
    the petition on the ground of prescription. It based its action on Act 3326 which states:

    According to the CA, because no complaint was filed in court within two years after the commission of the
    alleged violation, the offense had already prescribed.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not the alleged violation of the IPC has prescribed.

    HELD

    NO. The Supreme Court averred that the CA erred in concluding that the alleged violations of the IPC had
    prescribed because it had actually filed a complaint with TAPP of the DOJ.

    Filing of the Complaint in the DOJ Tolled the Prescriptive Period

    Section 2 of Act 3326 provides that the prescriptive period for violation of special laws starts on the day such
    offense was committed and is interrupted by the institution of proceedings against respondent (i.e., the
    accused).

    Petitioner in this instance filed its complaint-affidavit on April 4, 2002 or one year, ten months and four days
    after the NBI searched respondent's premises and seized Sanrio merchandise therefrom. Although no
    information was immediately filed in court, respondent's alleged violation had not yet prescribed. 30
    In the recent case of Brillantes v. Court of Appeals,31 we affirmed that the filing of the complaint for purposes
    of preliminary investigation interrupts the period of prescription of criminal responsibility. 32 Thus, the
    prescriptive period for the prosecution of the alleged violation of the IPC was tolled by petitioner's timely
    filing of the complaint-affidavit before the TAPP.

    You might also like