|
1. Parties
Plantiff:
Public Prosecutor, Office of the
Attorney-General
Defendant:
Knarath Sicharoen
2. Background and Issue
Background
The
Plaintiff charged that during the
daytime of October 30,2001, the
defendant infringed the petty patent by
offering for distribution and having in
possession for distribution with
commercial purposes the body cleansing
product of which an unknown person had
unlawfully manufactured infringing the
Petty Patent No. 192 owned by the
injured person. The defendant was aware
that the illegal reproduction of these
goods infringed the injured person’s
rights. The incident occurred at Khwaeng
Bangmod, Khet Jomthong, Bangkok.
The
Defendant denied the charge.
Pending the trial, the injured person
filed a petition to enter the case as co-plaintiff,
The Central Intellectual Property and
International Trade Court allowed the
request.
Issue
With
respect to the trial, The Department of
Medical Science submitted an expert’s
report to the Central Intellectual
Property and International Trade Court
concluding that the chemical compound of
the forfeited cleansing cream could not
be analyzed. What other evidence could
be presented to the court to prove that
the defendant violated the co-plaintiff’s
rights?
Whether the defendant did not distribute
the confiscated cream as she claimed.
3. Ruling
The Central
Intellectual Property and International
Trade Court decided that the defendant
had committed an offense against the
Patent Act B.E.2522 (1979) section 36,65
bis, 86 and that a fine of 6,000 baht be
imposed upon her and the cleansing cream
be confiscated.
4. Opinion
Even
though the expert’s report could not
show the chemical compound of the
forfeited cleansing cream, the results
of the analysis reported that the common
core compound of the co-plaintiff and
defendant’s cleansing cream was “Sodium
Chloride”. The defendant answered during
the cross- examination of the plaintiff
that she had consulted The Department of
Intellectual Property to challenge the
validity of the said co-plaintiff’s
petty patent. This circumstantial
evidence was enough to prove that the
defendant had known that her product
infringed the co-plaintiff’s rights.
As
regards the second issue, the court held
that the defendant ordered The Pioneer
Industrial Creative Co.Ltd. 1,200
plastic boxes to contain the disputed
product demonstrated that the defendant
intended to distribute it.
5. Keywords
Distribution - Compound Analysis
Summarized and Translated by
Phattarrasak Vannasaeng
Editted by
Stephen Lorriman
|