New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Results 1 to 20 of 72

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,702
    #15
    By the way, from RA 8293, section 168:

    Section 168. Unfair Competition, Rights, Regulation and Remedies. - 168.1. A person who has identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufactures or deals in, his business or services from those of others, whether or not a registered mark is employed, has a property right in the goodwill of the said goods, business or services so identified, which will be protected in the same manner as other property rights.

    168.2. Any person who shall employ deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which he shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services for those of the one having established such goodwill, or who shall commit any acts calculated to produce said result, shall be guilty of unfair competition, and shall be subject to an action therefor.

    168.3. In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of protection against unfair competition, the following shall be deemed guilty of unfair competition:

    (a) Any person, who is selling his goods and gives them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in any other feature of their appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer, other than the actual manufacturer or dealer, or who otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate trade, or any subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling such goods with a like purpose;

    (b) Any person who by any artifice, or device, or who employs any other means calculated to induce the false belief that such person is offering the services of another who has identified such services in the mind of the public; or

    (c) Any person who shall make any false statement in the course of trade or who shall commit any other act contrary to good faith of a nature calculated to discredit the goods, business or services of another.

    168.4. The remedies provided by Sections 156, 157 and 161 shall apply mutatis mutandis. (Sec. 29, R.A. No. 166a)
    X-Play is not the producer of the goods. If the goods were bought in good faith from the supplier in good faith, it's legitimate parallel importation.

    Only the publisher can charge DataBlitz, if the publisher has a policy of non-reselling, but it should show that its products are clearly labelled that they are not for resale.

    However, in other cases, judges have ruled against publishers who have a non-resale policy, though this is not universal, and sometimes the ruling goes the other way. However, in regards to video games, the judges usually side with the customer.
    Last edited by niky; November 6th, 2012 at 09:18 PM.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

Datablitz raided for selling "pirated" software