Case Title
Wilson Dy Go, Decision
Relevant Facts
Argument/s of the
Petitioner
Argument/s of the
Respondent
Decision of the Trial Court
and/or Director of Patents
Decision of the Court of
Appeals, if applicable
Relevant Ruling of the
Supreme Court
Yan Yan Intl Phils vs.
No. 15-205, September 28, 2015
Yan Yan International Philippines filed a petition
to cancel Utility Model Registration no. 2-2010-
000494 issued to Wilson Dy Go and titled Liquid
Packaging.
Yan Yan alleged that the Liquid Packaging is
substantially similar in function, shape and
design to the Industrial Design covered by the
Registration “Juice Container” issued to one
Danny Co Tue Tiu. The industrial design lacks
novelty.
Wilson Dy Go alleged that he is the registered
owner of the UM and that it is new, original and
industrially applicable. He avers that a
comparison between the 2 will show distinctive
and new feature namely: “a tearable member at
the upper portion of the said packaging body
capable of tearing to facilitate opening of the
liquid outlet through imaginary tearing line
provided.” He also claims that Yan Yan only filed
the instant case in anticipation of his filing of an
infringement case against it.
The Bureau ruled in favor of Go
NA
The Bureau finds merit to Go’s argument that its
utility model is distinct in view of the tearable
upper potion of its juice drink container. There is
no way for validating or confirming the same as
the latter pertains solely on ornamental design
and not as to function. The extent of protection of
the industrial design registration for A Juice
container cannot encompass to more than what
is granted. To allow it will create a dangerous
precedent wherein industrial designs, which do
not require the element of industrial applicability
can be used as a ground to cancel a utility model
registration.
While a utility model pertains to a useful object,
an industrial design is any composition of lines or
colors or any three-dimensional form. Whether or
not associated with lines or colors: Provided that

Relevance to the Topic
(include relevant provisions
of the IPL)
such composition or form gives a special
appearance to and can serve as pattern for an
industrial product or handicraft.
An industrial design pertains to ornaments or
aesthetic feature while the utility model as to the
use of function. The law only requires novelty for
an industrial design while that of a utility requires,
in addition to novelty, that it must be industrially
applicable.
The instant petition is dismissed. The file
wrapper of Utility Model Registration no. 2-2010-
000494 be returned, together with a copy of the
Decision, to the Bureau of Patents for
information and appropriate action.
A utility model is a technical solution to a
problem in any field of human activity which is
new and industrially applicable. It may be, or
may relate to, a product, or process, or an
improvement of any of the aforesaid. Essentially,
a utility model refers to an invention in the
mechanical field. This is the reason why its
object is sometimes described as a device or
useful object.