Scribd
Upload
16 views2 pages

Batist Is

Juno Batistis was convicted for trademark infringement and unfair competition due to possession of counterfeit Fundador brandy products. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings and upholding the conviction, but modified the penalty to two to three years imprisonment and a fine of ₱50,000. The case highlights the enforcement of intellectual property rights against counterfeiting activities.

Uploaded by

r.secretcloset16
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views2 pages

Batist Is

Juno Batistis was convicted for trademark infringement and unfair competition due to possession of counterfeit Fundador brandy products. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings and upholding the conviction, but modified the penalty to two to three years imprisonment and a fine of ₱50,000. The case highlights the enforcement of intellectual property rights against counterfeiting activities.

Uploaded by

r.secretcloset16
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

TITLE: Batistis v People

CASE: G.R. No.181571

DATE: December 16, 2009

FACTS:

● On January 23, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, in Manila
convicted Juno Batistis for

violations of Section 155 (infringement of trademark) and Section 168 (unfair


prove competition) of the

Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293).

● Batistis was caught with counterfeit Fundador brandy products, including


empty and filled bottles, labels,

and packaging that closely resembled the genuine products of Pedro


Domecq, S.A., a Spanish company that

owns the Fundador trademark.

● During the raid authorized by a search warrant, a significant number of


counterfeit materials were found at

Batistis’ premises. These included hundreds of empty Fundador bottles,


boxes, and plastic caps, along with

other bottles of premium liquors. The court noted that Batistis’ efforts to
make the counterfeit products appear

genuine were aimed at deceiving the public, thus violating the intellectual
property rights of Pedro Domecq,

S.A.

● In convicting Batistis, the Court upheld the findings of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) and the Court of

Appeals (CA) that the evidence, including the police officers’ testimonies and
the seized items, clearly

showed that Batistis engaged in illegal activity.

● Batistis now appeals via petition for review on certiorari to challenge the
CA’s affirmance of his conviction
for infringement of trademark.

ISSUE:

● Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in convicting the accused basis of
the self-serving affidavits and

testimonies of the police officers who conducted the raid on the accused’s
house

RULING:

● The Supreme Court dismissed Juno Batistis’ appeal for raising questions of
fact, which are not allowed under

a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45), as it is limited to legal questions.


Since his appeal focused on

re-assessing facts already settled by the lower courts, it was improper.

● The Court upheld the conviction of Batistis by the RTC and CA for
trademark infringement under Section

155 of the Intellectual Property Code, involving the counterfeiting of


Fundador brandy. It found no reason to

disturb the factual findings of the lower courts.

● However, the Supreme Court modified the penalty to comply with the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposing

a sentence of two to three years imprisonment and a fine of ₱50,000. The


lower courts’ decision was affirmed

with this adjustment.

You might also like