Scribd
Upload
391 views1 page

Sanrio v. Lim

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.

Uploaded by

Karen Sheila B. Mangusan - Degay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
391 views1 page

Sanrio v. Lim

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.

Uploaded by

Karen Sheila B. Mangusan - Degay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 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