Case Digest (G.R. No. 154127)
Facts:
In Sanrio Company Limited vs. Edgar C. Lim, petitioner Sanrio Company Limited, a Japanese corporation and the copyright owner of characters such as Hello Kitty, appointed Gift Gate Incorporated (GGI) as its exclusive distributor in the Philippines. GGI, in turn, licensed local manufacturers to produce authorized Sanrio items. In 2001, following reports of counterfeit Sanrio products in the market, GGI commissioned IP Manila Associates (IPMA) to conduct market research. IPMA’s test purchases at various retail outlets revealed that respondent Edgar C. Lim, operating as Orignamura Trading in Tutuban Center, Manila, was selling imitations. On May 29, 2000, IPMA agents executed an affidavit and secured a search warrant from the Manila Executive Judge. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) seized numerous alleged counterfeit Sanrio products. On April 4, 2002, through its counsel, petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit before the DOJ’s Task-Force on Anti-Intellectual Property PiraCase Digest (G.R. No. 154127)
Facts:
- Parties and Licensing
- Petitioner Sanrio Company Limited, a Japanese corporation, owns copyrights in animated characters (e.g., Hello Kitty, Little Twin Stars).
- Gift Gate Incorporated (GGI) is Sanrio’s exclusive Philippine distributor and licensed JC Lucas Creative Products, Paper Line Graphics, and Melawares Manufacturing to produce certain Sanrio items for the local market.
- Market Investigation and Seizure
- In 2001, GGI commissioned IP Manila Associates (IPMA) to identify sources of counterfeit Sanrio products; IPMA agents executed an affidavit on May 29, 2000 accusing Orignamura Trading (respondent) of selling imitations.
- The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) obtained a search warrant on May 30, 2000, searched respondent’s Tutuban premises, and seized various Sanrio-labeled goods.
- Complaint and Appeals
- On April 4, 2002, Sanrio filed a complaint‐affidavit with the DOJ Task Force on Anti-Intellectual Property Piracy (TAPP) for violation of Section 217 (in relation to Sections 177 & 178) of the Intellectual Property Code. Respondent counter-affidavit claimed he was merely a retailer who purchased from authorized manufacturers.
- On September 25, 2002, TAPP dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, finding respondent relied in good faith on legitimate suppliers; reconsideration was denied.
- On August 29, 2003, the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor affirmed the dismissal for lack of reversible error.
- Petitioner filed a certiorari petition in the Court of Appeals (CA), which on May 3, 2005 dismissed it as prescribed under Act 3326 and, on the merits, upheld the DOJ’s finding of no probable cause; reconsideration was denied.
- Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.
Issues:
- Prescription
- Whether the filing of the complaint‐affidavit with the DOJ tolled the prescriptive period under Act 3326.
- Grave Abuse of Discretion
- Whether the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint when it found no probable cause.
- Criminal Liability
- Whether respondent is criminally liable under Section 217.3 of the IPC for selling counterfeit goods despite purchasing them from legitimate sources.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)