CEBU, Philippines - The owner of Diamond Auto Supply is facing charges for allegedly selling and distributing imitations of world-famous products.
The chairman of the task force on Anti-Intellectual Property Piracy, Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Pedrito Rances, approved the filing of charges before the Regional Trial Court against Alberto Yu for violation of Republic Act 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.
Assistant State Prosecutor Elizabeth Berdal, who evaluated the complaint, said she found enough basis to elevate the complaint to the court after Yu did not file counter-affidavit.
Berdal recommended a P10,000-bail for Yu’s temporary liberty.
The complainant of the case was Robert Bosch, Incorporated (BOSCH) represented by lawyer Carlo Carag.
“Complainant engaged the services of a paralegal investigation firm specializing in research and in the investigation of violation of intellectual property rights of its clients, for the purpose of conducting surveillance on certain establishments suspected of selling or offering for sale of products bearing the worlds-famous BOSCH marks.”
Ricky Taguding, market researcher who conducted an investigation, reported to BOSCH that Diamond Auto Supply located at No. 36 Leon Kilat St., Cebu City sells BOSCH products.
On February 8, 2006, they filed a letter-complaint to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)-7 asking for assistance to apprehend the owner of Diamond Auto Supply for selling and distributing counterfeit BOSCH products and without the consent of BOSCH registered trademarks.
The complainant was able to purchase in Diamond Auto Supply a sample for inspection, which they later found was fake.
A search warrant was issued by Judge Antonio Eugenio of RTC Manila Branch 24.
The complainant, with the help of the NBI, confiscated 12 pieces of spark plugs, three pieces of ignition coils, one piece horn (12 volts), another piece of horn (24 volts) and six pieces of relays, all bearing the BOSCH trademarks and devices.
Prosecutor Berdal said that when respondent was called for preliminary investigation, the latter did not appear although a subpoena was issued. (FREEMAN)