PAYMENT PROCESSING FIRM WINS INFRINGEMENT SUIT VS. ‘COPYRIGHT VIOLATOR’

THE owner of a payment processing service kiosks has won its infringement and unfair competition suit filed against another firm before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque Branch 258.

This, after Judge Noemi Balitaan rendered a decision directing Electronic Transfer and Advance Processing Inc. (E-TAP) and Perservando Hernandez to pay Manila Express Payments System (MEPS) more than P3 million in exemplary damages and another P200,000 as attorney’s fees, as well as the cost of suit.

In a 34-page decision dated September 26 but was released to the media just recently, Balitaan ruled that MEPS has proven its cause with preponderance of the evidence stemming from the suit hurled against E-TAP.

MEPS is engaged in the business of franchising, distribution, trading, and sale of duly registered and patented information technology (IT) products, such as but not limited to, Touch Pay, which utilizes a licensed model. 

The firm alleged that the business process of E-TAP through an automated payment machine Pay & Go infringed their registration.

It was revealed that among the companies allegedly using E-TAP’s system include Pay & Go, Xytrix/ZoomPay owned by Xytrix Systems Corporation, and Electronic Commerce Payments, Inc. (ECPay).

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) – Intellectual Property Rights Division raided and seized several automated payment machines under their label and supposedly powered by E-TAP.

In its ruling, the court ruled in favor of MEPS.

Based on the testimony of the parties’ respective witnesses and on the pieces of evidence adduced by them, this court believes that the E-TAP’s machine is basically the same as that of the plaintiff (MEPS),” the court held.

“The physical or visual design of both machines might have marked differences. However, as pointed out by another defendant’s witness, this visual comparison is not an issue in this case.”

Though the court did not sustain MEPS’ claim for actual damages representing loss of profits, it ruled that “in the absence of proof of the damages incurred with reasonable certainty.”

Notwithstanding, however, the tribunal pointed out that “the plaintiff (MEPS) is entitled to exemplary damages in accordance with Article 2229 of the Civil Code.”

“Likewise, the plaintiff having been compelled to incur expenses to protect its interest, is entitled to attorney’s fees and cost of suit,” it further said.