The Manila City prosecutors’ office has dismissed the criminal charges for infringement and unfair competition against the officers of two online payment and processing firms for alleged violations of Republic Act No. 8293, the Intellectual Property Code.

Dismissed “without prejudice” (to re-filing) was the infringement complaint against the officers of Electronic Transfer and Advanced Processing, Inc. (ETAP) and BTI Payment Philippines, Inc. filed by Manila Express Payment Systems, Inc. (MEPS), which owns the trademark for “TouchPay.”

MEPS is engaged in the business of importing, installing, servicing, selling and leasing of systems and technologies to facilitate and transact payments for cellular phones, while ETAP is engaged in the business of installation, servicing and operation of an electronic payment that would facilitate recharging and loading of prepaid mobile phones, among other things.

BTI, among other line of businesses, is engaged in services outsourcing, system application management and maintenance, payment solutions, software development, and call center. ETAP and BTI operate “Pay&Go” automated payment machines (APMs).

In a resolution issued last December with a copy made available late last month, Assistant City Prosecutor Robert G. Indunan noted the pendency of a case before the Paranaque City regional trial court (RTC) on infringement and unfair competition filed by MEPS.

“In this case, the instant criminal action for infringement was lodged for the first time sans (without) any final judgment for infringement against the herein respondents,” he resolution said.

“Thus, the instant criminal complaint is deemed to have been prematurely filed, for which herein respondents cannot as yet be indicted for infringement of a utility model,” it also said.  

In the case of unfair competition, the resolution dismissed the complaint as it noted: “The evidence adduced has not sufficiently or substantially established that the public or end consumers were confused as to the machines that they were utilizing in their transactions.”

“In the first place, just the physical appearance, both differ. The complaints sent via email anent ETAP’s ‘Pay&Go’ APT and MEPS’ ‘TouchPay’ have not clearly shown that the end consumers were misled or deceived as to the machines that they were using,” it said. 

“There is also no evidence showing that when the confiscated machines were operated such indeed showed or exhibited an imitation of the utility model flow of that of complainant MEPS,” it added.

“Verily, the evidence adduced is insufficient to indict herein respondents for unfair competition,” it said.

The dismissal of the complaint was approved by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Lolita S. Rodas.