Supreme Court in the Philippines clamps down on motorcycle copyright infringement

Two Chinese dealers of motorcycles lose copyright infringement case at SC



01/10/2008

The Supreme Court (SC) has turned down a petition filed by two Chinese businessmen questioning law enforcers’ seizure of imported China-made motorcycles they sell for supposedly misrepresenting their brand.

In a 15-page decision, the high court’s Third Division through Justice Minita Chico-Nazario denied the suit filed by Hon Ne Chan and Yunji Zeng who ran dealerships of the Dragon Spirit Motorcycle (DSM) brand in Caloocan City.

The ruling upholds the Court of Appeals decision which in turn ruled for the validity of the search and seizure warrants issued against the businessmen.

A raid was conducted on the Chinese firms by the National Bureau of Investigation for alleged violation of Republic Act 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines in November 2004.

The DSM brand included motorcycle models and parts for motorcycles bearing the brand “Super Wave,” “Waver” and “Wave” which is the brand of motorcycle maker Honda.

On the strength of search warrants issued by Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Artemio Tipon, NBI agents conducted a search of the premises and seized 84 motorcycles bearing the “Wave” brand.

The two were charged for violation of copyright infringement under RA 8293 which imposes a penalty of imprisonment from two years to five years and a fine ranging from P50,000 to P200,000 on any person found guilty of violating intellectual property rights.

Associate Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Antonio Nachura and Ruben Reyes concurred with the decision.

The businessmen filed a joint motion to quash the search warrants with the RTC and asked to order the return of the seized motorbikes.

They claimed the search warrants were defective because they were issued despite the absence of probable cause and that they were in the nature of general search warrants.

Ruling otherwise, the SC said the warrants were valid under the circumstances.

The court pointed out that in order to be valid, a search warrant must describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

“It is not required that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities,” the court said.

“The constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of description of the things to be seized is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures,” the SC explained. Benjamin B. Pulta