Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 234 views

    Sanrio v. Lim

    Uploaded by

    Karen Sheila B. Mangusan - Degay
    Lim was accused of selling counterfeit products bearing Sanrio's copyrighted characters like Hello Kitty. Sanrio filed a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Lim for copyright infringement. However, the DOJ dismissed the complaint due to insufficient evidence. To be criminally liable for copyright infringement, one must possess the infringing copy knowingly or with suspicion that it infringes on the genuine article. The DOJ found that Sanrio failed to prove Lim knew the merchandise he sold was counterfeit, while Lim showed he obtained the goods from legitimate sources. The prosecutors properly exercised their wide discretion and did not commit grave abuse in dismissing the case against Lim due to lack of probable cause.

    Copyright:

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

    Sanrio v. Lim

    Uploaded by

    Karen Sheila B. Mangusan - Degay
    234 views1 page
    Lim was accused of selling counterfeit products bearing Sanrio's copyrighted characters like Hello Kitty. Sanrio filed a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Lim for copyright infringement. However, the DOJ dismissed the complaint due to insufficient evidence. To be criminally liable for copyright infringement, one must possess the infringing copy knowingly or with suspicion that it infringes on the genuine article. The DOJ found that Sanrio failed to prove Lim knew the merchandise he sold was counterfeit, while Lim showed he obtained the goods from legitimate sources. The prosecutors properly exercised their wide discretion and did not commit grave abuse in dismissing the case against Lim due to lack of probable cause.

    Original Description:

    copyright case

    Original Title

    Sanrio-v.-Lim

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lim was accused of selling counterfeit products bearing Sanrio's copyrighted characters like Hello Kitty. Sanrio filed a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Lim for copyright infringement. However, the DOJ dismissed the complaint due to insufficient evidence. To be criminally liable for copyright infringement, one must possess the infringing copy knowingly or with suspicion that it infringes on the genuine article. The DOJ found that Sanrio failed to prove Lim knew the merchandise he sold was counterfeit, while Lim showed he obtained the goods from legitimate sources. The prosecutors properly exercised their wide discretion and did not commit grave abuse in dismissing the case against Lim due to lack of probable cause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    234 views1 page

    Sanrio v. Lim

    Uploaded by

    Karen Sheila B. Mangusan - Degay
    Lim was accused of selling counterfeit products bearing Sanrio's copyrighted characters like Hello Kitty. Sanrio filed a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Lim for copyright infringement. However, the DOJ dismissed the complaint due to insufficient evidence. To be criminally liable for copyright infringement, one must possess the infringing copy knowingly or with suspicion that it infringes on the genuine article. The DOJ found that Sanrio failed to prove Lim knew the merchandise he sold was counterfeit, while Lim showed he obtained the goods from legitimate sources. The prosecutors properly exercised their wide discretion and did not commit grave abuse in dismissing the case against Lim due to lack of probable cause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    168662 February 19, 2008


    SANRIO COMPANY LIMITED vs. EDGAR C. LIM, doing business as ORIGNAMURA TRADING

    FACTS:
    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).
    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.
    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. After conducting several test-buys in various commercial areas,
    IPMA confirmed that Lim's Orignamura Trading in Tutuban Center, Manila was selling imitations of petitioner's
    products.
    Sanrio filed a complaint-affidavit with the Task-Force on Anti-Intellectual Property Piracy (TAPP) of the
    Department of Justice (DOJ) against Lim for Copyright Infringement.
    Lim asserted in his counter-affidavit that he committed no violation of the provisions of the IPC because he
    was only a retailer. He neither reproduced nor manufactured any of Sanrio's copyrighted item; thus, he did not
    transgress the economic rights of Sanrio. Moreover, he obtained his merchandise from authorized manufacturers of
    Sanrio's products.
    The DOJ dismissed the complaint due to insufficiency of evidence.

    ISSUE:
    Whether Lim is guilty of Copyright Infringement.

    HELD:
    No.
    The DOJ did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review. To be criminally liable for
    violation of Section 217.3 of the IPC, the following requisites must be present:

    1. possession of the infringing copy and


    2. knowledge or suspicion that the copy is an infringement of the genuine article.

    The CA agreed with the DOJ that petitioner failed to prove that respondent knew that the merchandise he sold was
    counterfeit. Respondent, on the other hand, was able to show that he obtained these goods from legitimate sources.

    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.

    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.

    You might also like