P. 1


|Views: 35|Likes:
Published by Jeff Santos

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Jeff Santos on Mar 05, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less






MIGHTY CORPORATION vs. ENJ GALLO WINERS (GR No 154342, July 14, 2004) This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to annul, reverse, and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City which held petitioners liable for and permanently enjoined them from, committing trademark infringement and unfair competition, and the resolution denying their motion for reconsideration and the aforesaid RTC Makati decision itself. Facts: Respondent Gallo Winery is a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines but organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, United States of America (U.S.), which produces different kinds of wines and brandy products and sells them in many countries under different registered trademarks, including the GALLO and ERNEST & JULIO GALLO wine trademarks. On the other hand, petitioners Mighty Corporation and La Campana and their sister company, Tobacco Industries of the Philippines (Tobacco Industries), are engaged in the cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of tobacco products for which they have been using the GALLO cigarette trademark since 1973. Tobacco Industries assigned the GALLO cigarette trademark to La Campana which applied for trademark registration in the Philippine Patent Office. On July 17, 1985, the National Library issued Certificate of Copyright Registration No. 5834 for La Campana’s lifetime copyright claim over GALLO cigarette labels. Subsequently, La Campana authorized Mighty Corporation to manufacture and sell cigarettes bearing the GALLO trademark. Petitioners claim that GALLO cigarettes have been sold in the Philippines since 1973, initially by Tobacco Industries, then by La Campana and finally by Mighty Corporation. On the other hand, although the GALLO wine trademark was registered in the Philippines in 1971, respondents claim that they first introduced and sold the GALLO and ERNEST & JULIO GALLO wines in the Philippines circa 1974 within the then U.S. military facilities only. By 1979, they had expanded their Philippine market through authorized distributors and independent outlets. Respondents claim that they first learned about the existence of GALLO cigarettes in the latter part of 1992 when an Andresons employee saw such cigarettes on display with GALLO wines in a Davao supermarket wine cellar section. Respondents sued petitioner in the Makati RTC for trademark and tradename infringement and unfair competition, with a prayer for damages and preliminary injunction. They claimed that petitioners adopted the GALLO trademark to ride on Gallo Winery's GALLO and ERNEST & JULIO GALLO trademarks' establihsed reputation and popularity, thus causing confusion, depection, and mistake on the part of the purchasing public who had always associated GALLO and ERNEST & JULIO GALLO trademarks with Gallo Winery's wine. The Makati RTC denied respondent's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction holding that respondent's GALLO trademark registration certificate covered wines only, that respondents' wines and petitioners' cigarettes were not related goods and respondents failed to prove material damage or great irreparable injury as required by Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.

However, after trial on the merits, the Makati RTC held petitioners liable for and permanently enjoined them from, committing trademark infringement and unfair competition with respect to the GALLO trademark. On appeal, the CA affirmed the Makati RTC decision and subsequently denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence, this case. Issue: Whether or not there is infringement. Held: At the time the cause of action accrued in this case, the IPC was not yet enacted so the relevant laws used were the Trademark Law and the Paris Convention. The SC held that there was no infringement. The use of the respondent of the mark “Gallo” for its wine products was exclusive in nature. The court mentioned two types of confusion in Trademark Infringement: Confusion of Goods – when an otherwise prudent purchaser is induced to purchase one product in the belief that he is purchasing another, in which case defendant’s goods are then brought as the plaintiff’s and its poor quality reflects badly on the plaintiff’s reputation. Confusion of Business – wherein the goods of the parties are different but the defendant’s product can reasonably (though mistakenly) be assumed to originate from the plaintiff, thus deceiving the public into believing that there is some connection between the plaintiff and defendant which, in fact, does not exist. In determining the likelihood of confusion, the Court must consider: (a) the resemblance between the trademarks; (b) the similarity of the goods to which the trademark is attached; (c) the likely effect on the purchaser; and (d) the registrant’s express or implied consent and other fair and equitable considerations. In this case, the SC employing the dominancy test, concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion. They materially differ in color scheme, art works and markings. Further, the two goods are not closely related because he products belong to different classifications, form, composition and they have different intended markets or consumers.

ELIDAD C. KHO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SUMMERVILLE GENERAL MERCHANDISING COMPANY and ANG TIAM CHAY (G.R. No. 115758, March 19, 2002, 379 SCRA 410) This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision setting aside and declaring as null and void the Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Facts: In the complaint, petitioner allegations are that they are doing business under the name and style of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory, registered owner of Chin Chun Su and oval facial cream container/case. Petitioner likewise alleged that she also has patent rights on Chin Chun Su and Device and Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream after purchasing the same from Quintin Cheng, the registered owner thereof in the supplemental register of the Philippine Patent Office and that Summerville advertised and sold petitioner’s cream products under the brand name Chin Chun Su, in similar containers that petitioner uses, thereby misleading the public, and resulting in the decline in the petitioner’s business sales and income; and, that the respondents should be enjoined from allegedly infringing on the copyrights and patents of the petitioner. The respondents, on the other hand, alleged as their defense that (1) Summerville is the exclusive and authorized importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun Su products manufactured by Shun Yi factory of Taiwan, (2) that the said Taiwanese manufacturing company authorized Summerville to register its trade name Chin Chun Cu Medicated Cream with the Philippine Patent office and Other appropriate governmental agencies; (3) that KEC Cosmetics Laboratory of the petitioner obtained the copyrights through misrepresentation and falsification; and, (4) that the authority of Quintin Cheng, assignee of the patent registration certificate, to distribute and market Chin Chun Su products in the Philippines had already terminated by the said Taiwanese manufacturing company. Issue: Whether or not petitioner Kho has the sole right using the package of Chin Chun Su products. Held: Petitioner has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use of the subject trade name and its container. The name and container of a beauty cream product are proper subjects of a trademark in as much as the same falls squarely within its definition. In order to be entitled to exclusively use the same in the sale of the beauty cream product, the user must sufficiently prove that she registered or used it before anybody else did. The petitioner’s copyright and patent registration of the name and container would not guarantee her the right to exclusive use of the same for the reason that they are not appropriate subjects of the said intellectual rights. Consequently, a preliminary injunction order cannot be issued for the reason that the petitioner has not proven that she has a clear right over the said name and container to the exclusion of others, not having proven that she has registered a trademark thereto or used the same before anyone did.

ELIDAD KHO and VIOLETA KHO vs. HON. ENRICO LANZANAS, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila – Branch 7 and SUMMERVILLE GENERAL MERCHANDISING (GR No. 150877, May 4, 2006) This is a petition praying that the decision of the Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside, and a new decision be issued granting the quashal of Search Warrant No. 99-1520 and ordering the return of the items unlawfully seized. Facts: Shun Yih Chemistry Factory (SYCF), a business existing and operating in Taiwan and engaged in the manufacture and sale of Chin Chun Su Creams/Cosmetics, appointed Young Factor Enterprises in the Philippines, owned and operated by Quintin Cheng also known as Kho Seng Hiok, as its distributor of Chin Chun Su products in the Philippines for a term of two years beginning 1978. Quintin Cheng registered with the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) as distributor of Chin Chun Su products. Quintin Cheng subsequently secured a supplemental registration for Chin Chun Su and device. This supplemental registration was ordered cancelled by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer on the ground of failure of the registrant to file the required affidavit of non-use as required by Section 12 of Republic Act No. 166, as amended. Notwithstanding this cancellation, Quintin Cheng executed on 30 January 1990 an Assignment of a Registered Trademark and a Supplementary Deed of Assignment dated 25 November 1991 wherein he sold all his right, title, interest and goodwill in the trademark Chin Chun Su and device to petitioner Elidad Kho. In the meantime, animosity arose between SYCF and Quintin Cheng resulting in the termination of their distributorship agreement on 30 October 1990. Consequently, on 30 November 1990, SYCF appointed respondent Summerville General Merchandising, represented by Ang Tiam Chay and Victor Chua, as its exclusive importer, repacker and distributor of Chin Chun Su products in the Philippines for a period of five years or until May 2005. SYCF further executed a Special Power of Attorney dated 11 September 1991 in favor of Summerville General Merchandising granting it the authority to file complaints against usurpers of Chin Chun Su trademarks/tradename. From the foregoing incidents arose several judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. In the case pending before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, there were different ruling in this case until it boils down when the DOJ directed the City Prosecutor of Manila to continue with the criminal prosecution of the Khos for Unfair Competition. The RTC of Manila held that whatever maybe the merits of the Motion for Reconsideration, revival of the case is now barred by the impregnable wall of double jeopardy. Accordingly, the MR is denied with finality. Thus, Summerville General Merchandising raised its case to the Court of Appeals, and the Court denied due course to the petition of Summerville General Merchandising and affirmed the ruling of the trial court that, indeed, double jeopardy has set in. In the case for Search Warrant before the RTC of Manila, a search warrant was issued

. On 17 January 2000. "probable cause" is concerned with probability. commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court. the court find that he had complied with the procedural and substantive requirements for issuing a search warrant. this case. SEC. Elidad. 6. Elidad and Violeta Kho filed a Petition for Certiorari and Preliminary Mandatory Injunction before the Court of Appeals questioning the aforementioned Orders of the RTC of Manila.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC of Manila. In Microsoft Corporation v. Its enforcement led to the seizure of several Chin Chun Su products. he shall issue the warrant. Held: No. – A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines. SECTION 1. Hence. No law or rule states that probable cause requires a specific kind of evidence. probable cause for a search warrant requires such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be searched. – If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is based or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist. which must be substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules. No formula or fixed rule for its determination exists. On the contrary. xxxx The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. in its findings of probable cause to issue a search warrant. Search warrant defined. As implied by the words themselves. Maxicorp. Inc. Probable cause is determined in the light of conditions . a motion to quash the search warrant and for the return of the items unlawfully seized. Branch 7. Issuance and form of search warrant. not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial. Branch 7. supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man. 991520. signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer. Violeta and Roger Kho filed before the RTC of Manila. What constitutes "probable cause" is well settled. Violeta and Roger Kho on the same day. bound to respect his finding of probable cause for issuing Search Warrant No. A decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals denying the petition. The court cannot find any irregularity or abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Lanzanas for issuing the assailed search warrant. therefore." Thus. Santos against Elidad. Branch 7. The court. The same was denied for lack of merit. not absolute or even moral certainty. Probable cause means "such reasons.

. in this case Judge Lanzanas.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. The surveillance conducted by SPO4 Nedita Balagbis on the basis of reliable information that Elidad. probable cause existed for the issuance of the warrant as shown by the affidavits of the above affiants who had personal knowledge of facts indicating that an offense involving violation of intellectual property rights was being committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. Santos obtaining in a given situation. to conclude that there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. xxx Clearly. Violeta and Roger Kho were engaged in the illegal manufacture and sale of fake Chin Chun Su products enabled her to gain personal knowledge of the illegal activities of the Khos. This fact was sufficient justification for the examining judge.

subsist with respect to any classes of work. November 9. which is the duly registered trademark and copyright as early as 1957 and additionally also a TV special the “PEANUTS” character “CHARLIE BROWN”.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. vs. the copyright to w/c is exclusively owned by United Feature Syndicate. Aside from its copyright registration. Section 2. 1989) This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal of petitioner-appellant for having been filed out of time and denying its Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. Since Charlie Brown and its pictorial representation were covered by a copyright registration way back 1950. Facts: A Petition for review on certiorari filed by United Feature Syndicate Inc. petitioner is also the owner of several trademark registration and application for the name and likeness “CHARLIE BROWN”. (2) Charlie Brown is a character creation or a pictorial illustration.. . xxx (o) prints. Issue: Whether or not a copyrighted character may not be appropriated as a trademark by another under PD 49. advertising copies. pictorial illustrations. The case arose from a petition for cancellation of the registration of trademark of Charlie Brown filed by petitioner alleging that they are damaged by the registration of trademark Charlie Brown on T-shirts on the ground that (1) Munsingwear is not entitled to the registration of the mark Charlie Brown and Device at the time of application of registration. seeking to set aside the Resolution dismissing the appeal of petitioner-appellant for having been filed out of time and denying its Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. INC. The right granted by this decree shall. the same are entitled to protection under PD 49. 76193. Santos UNITED FEATURE SYNDICATE. from the moment of creation. petitioner has since 1950 used and reproduced the same to the exclusion of others. labels. Held: Yes. and box wraps. tags. MUNSINGWEAR CREATION MANUFACTURING COMPANY (GR No. (3) as the owner of the pictorial illustration.

In this case. INC.. Hence. vs. 2004) (GR 140946. it ruled that the petitioner could argue the case in lieu of OSG if there is grave error committed by the lower court or lack of due process ( to avoid a situation where the complainant find itself powerless to pursue a remedy due to circumstances beyond its control. Maxicorp filed a motion to quash search warrants alleging there was no probable cause for their issuance and the search warrant is a general warrant. Held: A petition for review under Rule 45 should cover question of laws. . Whether or not there is probable cause to issue search warrant. Probable cause – reasonable belief that an offense has been committed. In Columbia Pictures Entertainment vs. CA. the finding of the CA conflicts with the trial court. It ruled that NBI Samiano failed to present during preliminary examination that Maxicorp produced and sold the counterfeit products and that the receipt presented as evidence that he bought the products from Maxicorp was in the name of a certain Joel Diaz. September 13. Inc. NBI agents conducted a search on Maxicorp premises and seized properties fitting the description in the search warrant. Armed with a search warrant. finding of facts of the CA are final and conclusive and this court will not review them on appeal subject on the exception when the finding of the CA conflicts with the trial court. This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the Order of the lower court denying respondent Maxicorp. Whether or not the search warrant is in a form of a general warrant. this case. The testimonies of the two witnesses and the object and documentary evidence are sufficient to establish the existence of probable cause. Facts: The antecedent facts are as follow: NBI Agent Samiano filed several application for search warrant against Maxicorp for Violation of Section 29 of PD 49 and Article 189 of the RPC. MACXICORP. Santos MICROSOFT CORP & LOTUS DEV. RTC denied the Motion as well as the MR. Whether or not petitioner has legal personality to file this petition as it is the OSG as representative of the People of the Philippines is the proper party in a criminal case.. CORP. the RTC issued a search warrant against Maxicorp. CA reversed the lower court ruling. Question of facts is not reviewable.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. Issues: Whether or not the Petition is defective because it failed to raise question of law. As a rule. After conducting preliminary examination of the applicant and his witnesses. motion to quash the search warrant that the RTC issued against Maxicorp. it falls under one of the exceptions.

A search warrant must state particularly the place to be search and the object to be seized. Paragraph c of the search warrant is lacking in particularity. . The scope of this description is all-embracing since it covers property used for personal and other purposes not related to copyright infringement or unfair competition. should be returned to Maxicorp.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. All items seized under paragraph c. Santos The court finds for Maxicorp. No provision of law exists w/c requires that the warrant partially defective should be nullified as a whole.

. Microsoft and Lotus charged respondents for copyright infringement and unfair competition. Hence this case. Facts: Microsoft and Beltron entered into a Licensing Agreement authorizing Beltron. Microsoft hired a private investigative firm and sought assistant of the NBI wherein NBI Agent Samiano and and Sacriz posing as representative of computer shop. the gravamen of copyright infringement is not merely the unauthorized manufacturing of intellectual works but rather the unauthorized performance of any of the acts covered by Section 5. HWANG/BELTRON COMPUTER PHILS. The TRC granted the application and the NBI searched the premises of Beltron and TMTC and seized several computer related hardware. DOJ ruled that the liability of the respondents is civil in nature because of the license agreement and to pressure Beltron to pay its obligation under the Agreement and Microsoft failed to show evidence that respondents were engaged in sale of counterfeit softwares of Microsoft. FOR A FEE. any person who performs any of the acts under Section 5 w/o obtaining the copyright owner's prior consent render himself civilly and criminally liable for copyright infringement. Microsoft Applied for search warrant against respondents. distribute. The circumstances give rise to the reasonable inference that respondents mass-produced the DC ROMs in question w/o securing Microsoft's prior authorization. Among these were 2831 pieces of CD ROMs containing Microsoft software.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. Santos MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. user's manual. JUDY C. and sell his intellectual property). The CPU contained pre-installed Microsoft Window and MS-DOS software but they were not given end user license agreements. Microsoft learned the respondents were illegally copying and selling Microsoft software. A petition for certiorari of the Resolution of the DOJ dismissing for lack of merit and insufficiency of evidence petitioner Microsof complaint against respondents for copyright infringement and unfair competition. et al. Hence.. and paraphernalia. Microsoft terminated the Agreement for Beltron's non-payment of royalties. Issue: Whether or not there is probable cause to charge respondents for copyright infringement and unfair competition. certificates of authenticity of the articles they purchased. multiply. INC. software. vs. Contrary to the DOJ's ruling. Held: Section 5 of PD 49 enumerates the rights vested exclusively on the copyright owner ( copy. bought computer hardware and software from respondents. accessories. to reproduce and install no more than 1 copy of Microsoft Software on each customer system hard disk or read only memory and distribute directly or indirectly and license copies of the product.

Santos The counterfeit CD ROMs Samiano and Sacriz bought from respondents also suffice to support finding of probable cause to indict respondents for unfair competition for passing off MS products. one cannot distinguish genuine MS software. Such replication implies intent to deceive. . From the pictures of the CDE ROM packaging.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L.

pictorial illustrations. SHOEMART. Makati and Cubao.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. Metro Industrial Services the company formerly contracted by P&D to fabricate its display units. SMI informed P&D that it was revoking the contract for Makati due to non-performance of terms. Hence. P&D was able to secure a Certificate of Copyright Registration over these illuminated display units. However. Some 300 units were fabricated. advertising copies. the contract for SM Makati wa returned signed. However. Since North EDSA was under construction at that time. Santos PEARL & DEAN (PHIL). The advertising light boxes were marketed under the trademark “Poster Ads”. Several light boxes were fabricated by Metro Industrial for SMI. After its contract w/ Metro Industrial was terminated.. and North EDSA Marketing Inc. this case. offered to construct light boxes for SM stores. INC. and NORTH EDSA MARKETING. P&D received reports that exact copies of its light boxes were installed at SM stores. tags. SMI offered as an alternative. Light box is not a literary or artistic piece which could be copyrighted under the copyright law. (GR 148222. also applied for registration on the trademark. 2003) This is a petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the decision of Regional Trial court of Makati declaring private respondents Shoemart. This being so. labels. Issues: Whether or not SMI committed infringement of copyright.. SMI engaged the services of EYD Rainbow Advertising Corp to make the light boxes. CA reversed said ruling in favor of SMI... INC. To be able to legally preclude others from copying and profiting from the invention. P&D filed a case for infringement of trademark and copyright. liable for infringement of trademark and copyright. (P&D) is engaged in the manufacture of advertising display units referred to as light boxes. Two years later. P&D owned a valid copyright only to technical drawings within the category of pictorial illustrations. P&D inquire about the other contract but SMI did not bother to reply. INC. P&D's copyright protection extended only on the technical drawing not to the light box itself because the latter was not at all in the category of print.. vs. ON THE ISSUE OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT P&D never secured a patent for the light boxes. patent is a primordial . Inc. P&D negotiated w/ SMI for the lease and installation of the light boxes in North EDSA. Inc.. Because it had not patent. patent and unfair labor practice. unfair competition and damages. August 15. and box wraps. RTC ruled in favor of P&D. P&D could not legally prevent anyone from manufacturing or commercially using the device. Facts: Pearl & Dean (Phil). w/c P&D agreed. and unfair competition. Held: ON THE ISSUE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT P&D secured its copyright under classification class “o” work.

There was no evidence that P&D's use of POSTER ADS was distinctive or well-known. “POSTER ADS” was too generic a name. ON THE ISSUE OF UNFAIR COMPETITION P&D did not appeal this particular pint. . Santos requirement. hence.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. it cannot now revive its claim for unfair competition.

130360.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. for having been issued with grave abuse of confidence). He must have crated it by his own skills. Therefore. WPI is not proper). copies of the certificates of copyright registered in the name of the Cereoil Shandong raised reasonable doubt. Held: A person to be entitled to a copyright must be the original creator of the work. labor. preliminary injunction is useless ( where the complainant title was disputed. Ong's Cer of Copyright Registration was no valid for lack of originality because the two dragon design was from Ceroilfood Shandong w/c had Cert of Registration issued by different countries. In this case. He acquired copyright registration on said design. (in the absence of legal right and the injury sustained by the plaintiff. Whether or not the CA erred in setting aside the order of the trial court. Facts: Petitioner imports vermicelli from China National Cereals Oils and Food stuffs Import and Export Corp. In this case. That right is what is in dispute and has yet to be determined. He repacks it in cellophane wrappers w/ a design of two dragons and TOWER trademark on the uppermost portion. August 15. CA & LORENZO TAN (G. Ong's right has not been clearly demonstrated. It was premature for CA to declare that the design of pet's wrapper is a copy of the wrapper . Santos WILSON ONG CHING KIAN HUAN vs. there was no grave abuse of confidence on the part of CA. an order granting the issuance of an injunctive relive will be set aside. 2001) This is a petition for review seeking to annul the decision of the Court of Appeals which set aside the resolution as well as the order of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.R. Issue: Whether or not the issuance of WPI proper. China in a nearly identical wrappers. To be entitled to an injunctive relief. and judgment without directly copying or evasively imitating the work of others. based in Beijing China under the firm name CKC Trading. No. With such doubt. Ong filed a complaint for infringement of copyright and damages alleging he was the holder of a certificate of copyright registration over cellophane wrapper w/ 2 dragon design w/c Tan used an identical wrappers A TRO was issued but Tan alleged that Ong did not have a clear right over the sue of the trademark Pagoda& Lungkow vermicelli as these were registered in the name of Ceroilfood Shandong and he was the exclusive distributor in the Philippines and finally. petitioner must show the existence of a clear and unmistakable right and an urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. then issued a judgment touching on the merits. Ong discovered that Lorenzo Tan repacked his vermicelli he imports from the same company but based on Qingdao.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. Santos allegedly registered by Deroilfood Shandong. Remanded to the trial court. finding of CA on Ong's copyright wrapper is set aside for being premature. Partially granted WPI to prohibit Tan from using cellophane denied. . That matter remains for decision after appropriate proceedings at the trial court.

Respondent CVSGE. 132604. Thereafter. doing business under the name and style of CVSGE. of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. private respondents amended their complaint to include CVSGIC. After hearing. making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction. the case was revived. INC. the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining CVSGIC to manufacture and sell pants with arcuate design on the back pockets. replied that the arcuate design on the back pockets of Europress is different from Levi's and theirs had a copyright. this case. The counsel of CVSGIC manifested that CVSGE. (GR N. 1-1998 in the name of Venancio Sambar. CVSGIC and Sambar. sold and advertised. despite demand to cease. CVSGIC further averred that their arcuate design is very different from Levi's/ Sambar denied connection with CVSGIC and denied using the said design and did not authorized anyone to use the copyrighted design. ordering the Director of the National Library to cancel Copyright Registration No. 1998. doing business under the name and style of CVS Garment Enterprises vs. Levi's alleged that they own the arcuate design trademark registered in the US and in the Philippines which granted Levi Strauss Phils. CVSGIC did not present any evidence. demanded that CVS Garment Enterprises (CVSGE) desist from using their stitched arcuate design on the Europress jeans which CVSGE advertised in the Manila Bulletin. Thereafter. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which decided in favor of private respondents. through a letter from their legal officer. Facts: On September 28. (LSPI) non-exclusive license to use the arcuate design in its sale of Levi's pants. March 6. etc.. He also claimed he did not know the whereabouts of Sambar.). . private respondents filed a complaint against Sambar. and LEVI STRAUSS (PHIL. When private respondents learned the whereabouts of Sambar and CVSGE. 2002) This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision dated January 30. in the Philippines. LEVI STRAUSS & CO. through counsel. prejudicial to Levi's property right. Inc. without consent of Levi's. In their complaint. Hence. Thus. In 1987. Private respondents also impleaded the Director of the National Library. private respondents. already stopped operation and CVSGIC took over CVSGE’s occupation of the premises. the alleged owner of CVSGE... continued to manufacture and sell Europress bearing a design similar to the Levi's to the confusion of the public. 1987. the trial court rendered decision in favor of Levi's.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. Santos VENANCIO SAMBAR. which was formerly doing business in the premises. CVSGIC denied that there was infringement or unfair competition because the display rooms of department stores where Levi's and Europress were sold were segregated by billboards and other modes of advertisement to avoid confusion of the buying public.

the trial court did not make any such ruling. We are bound by this finding. Both the courts below found that petitioner had a copyright over Europress’ arcuate design and that he consented to the use of said design by CVSGIC. Petition is denied. especially in the absence of a showing that it was tainted with arbitrariness or palpable error. damages may still be measured based on a reasonable percentage of the gross sales of the respondents. Further.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. The cancellation of petitioner’s copyright was justified because petitioner’s copyright can not prevail over respondents’ registration in the Principal Register of Bureau of Patents. . petitioner claims that private respondents did not show that he was connected with CVSGIC. Again. On the contrary. Whether or not petitioner is solidarily liable with CVS Garments Industrial Corporation. It must be stressed that it was immaterial whether or not petitioner was connected with CVSGIC. Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the first issue raised by petitioner is factual. The basic rule is that factual questions are beyond the province of this Court in a petition for review. cancellation of his copyright was not justified. 166 otherwise known as the Trade Mark Law. private respondents aver it was misleading for petitioner to claim that the trial court ruled that private respondents did not suffer pecuniary loss. Petitioner maintains that as Europress’ arcuate design is not a copy of that of Levi’s. Santos Issue: Whether or not petition infringe on private respondent's arcuate design. the SC find no reason to disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals that Europress’ use of the arcuate design was an infringement of the Levi’s design. On the second issue. They offer that while there may be no direct proof that they suffered a decline in sales. as amended. Said sections define infringement and prescribe the remedies therefor. private respondents deny that the trial court ruled that the arcuate design of Europress jeans was not the same as Levi’s arcuate design jeans. According to the private respondents. It simply stated that there was no evidence that Levi’s had suffered decline in its sales because of the use of the arcuate design by Europress jeans. there are also differences in the two designs. the trial court expressly ruled that there was similarity. and Technology Transfer. the essence of copyright registration is originality and a copied design is inherently noncopyrightable. citing the trial court’s findings that although there are similarities. pursuant to Section 23 of the Trademark law. What is relevant is that petitioner had a copyright over the design and that he allowed the use of the same by CVSGIC. which was the law then governing. this is a factual matter and factual findings of the trial court. are final and binding on this Court. On this matter. suggesting that the award of damages was improper. nor did they prove his specific acts of infringement to make him liable for damages. this case is not one of them. Hence. They insist that registration does not confer originality upon a copycat version of a prior design. Trademarks. private respondents assert that the lower courts found that there was infringement and Levi’s was entitled to damages based on Sections 22 and 23 of RA No. Although there are exceptions to this rule. concurred in by the Court of Appeals. With regards to the cancellation of petitioner’s copyright. According to private respondents.

per "Trademark. respondent. marketing. the trial court found that the respondent intended to appropriate. that the goods. with the Regional Trial Court of Manila which subsequently issued the subject search warrants. and sale of its clothing and other goods. Petitioner then applied for the issuance of a search warrant on the premises of respondent Vogue Traders Clothing Company. 132993. it instituted two cases before the BPTTT for the cancellation of respondent’s trademark registrations. in case the same had been destroyed or impaired as a result of the seizure. .. Consequently. Technical Data. the recent one being under Certificate of Registration No. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration. and finished products or the value thereof. and Technical Assistance Agreement. 4216 and 4217. 1988. in its view. The licensing agreement was renewed several times. it appears that criminal charges were filed against Tony Lim of respondent company in the Department of Justice. Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) has finally resolved Inter Partes Cases Nos. and hand tag. 53918 issued by the BPTTT.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. but the same were eventually dismissed and the search warrants were quashed. copy. Manila. 4216. equipment. with business address at 1082 Carmen Planas Street. 1379-A. Meanwhile. (b) the trademark "LIVE’S LABEL MARK" under Certificate of Registration No. respondent filed a complaint for damages in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Petitioner discovered the existence of some trademark registrations belonging to respondent which. to wit: Inter Partes Case No." and that the trademarks of respondent did not have any deceptive resemblance with the trademarks of petitioner. the principal based in Delaware. and name in the manufacturing. however. and the resolution of the Court of Appeals denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. 8868 (for "LIVE’S" Label Mark). vs. The complaint alleged that since January 1. Tondo. through Antonio Sevilla. Thus. and effects seized from respondent’s establishment were manufactured and used in its legitimate business of manufacturing and selling of the duly registered trademark "LIVE’S" and "LIVE’S ORIGINAL JEANS. distribution. The search warrants were enforced and several goods belonging to respondent were seized. INC. granted petitioner Levi Strauss (Phils. United States of America. 4217." its pocket design. VOGUE TRADERS CLOTHING COMPANY (GR No. 2005) This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul the decision of the Court of Appeals which annulled and set aside the orders issued by the Regional Trial Court of Manila and which directed the trial court to desist from proceeding with the said case until the Bureau of Patents. were confusingly similar to its trademarks." Levi Strauss & Co. 53918 (for "LIVE’S") and Inter Partes Case No. and (c) the copyright registrations of "LIVE’S ORIGINAL JEANS. Santos LEVI STRAUSS (PHILS. a petition for cancellation of Certificate of Registration No. had been a lawful assignee and authorized user of: (a) the trademark "LIVE’S" under Certificate of Registration No. June 29. articles. against petitioner. design.. SR 8868 issued by the BPTTT. owned by one Tony Lim. In an order dated December 10.). and slavishly imitate the genuine appearance of authentic LEVI’s jeans and pass off its LIVE’s jeans as genuine LEVI’s jeans. 1996.) a non-exclusive license to use LEVI’S trademark. a petition for cancellation of Certificate of Registration No. the same was denied. These search warrants commanded the seizure of certain goods bearing copies or imitations of the trademarks which belonged to petitioner. Facts: In 1972. Respondent sought to recover the seized assorted sewing materials.

Santos Respondent took the matter to the Court of Appeals which rendered a decision in favor of the respondent. The registration gives rise to a presumption of its validity and the right to the exclusive use of the same. including the available remedies of injunction and damages. a complete statement of the present status thereof. tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and. Certification against forum shopping. in the regular courts can proceed independently or simultaneously with an action for the administrative cancellation of a registered trademark in the BPTTT. Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure incorporating Administrative Circular Nos. Sec." does not preclude petitioner’s right (as a defendant) to include in its answer (to respondent’s complaint for damages in Civil Case No. Held: 1. (b) if there is such other pending action or claim. this case. Whether or not the CA erred in holding the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring respondent to have waived its right to adduce evidence to counter petitioner's evidence in support of its application for preliminary injunction. 1379-A for its Levi’s trademarks. to the best of his knowledge.A." an entity having a duly registered trademark can file a suit against another entity for the protection of its right. particularly the ability of the trial court to issue preliminary injunctive relief. petitioner’s prior filing of two inter partes cases against the respondent before the BPTTT for the cancellation of the latter’s trademark registrations. 1992) and 04-94 (effective April 1. and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending. — The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief. Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the preliminary injunctive order issued prejudges the case. 96-76944) a counterclaim for infringement with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. . or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court. Petitioner is a holder of Certificate of Registration No. "LIVE’S" and "LIVE’S Label Mark. Issues: Whether or not the CA committed reversible error in holding that the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction operates to suspend any and all proceedings.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. Hence. It bears stressing that an action for infringement or unfair competition. Section 5. namely.) No. he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. 166 or "The Trademark Law. 28-91 (effective January 1. Thus. As applied to the present case. 1994) states the requirement of a plaintiff or petitioner to include in his initiatory pleading or petition a certification of non-forum shopping. 2. Whether or not the CA erred in failing to hold that the certification against forum-shopping attached by respondent is fatally defective. No. enjoining the trial court from further proceeding with the case. 5. no such other action or claim is pending therein. As set forth in Section 17 of Republic Act (R.

or agencies. the Court of Appeals should have outrightly dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the respondent (as therein petitioner in the appeals court) due to the defective certification of non-forum shopping. . who is not one of its duly authorized directors or officers. The evidence submitted during the hearing of the incident is not conclusive. is defective. in fact. Santos The requirement of certification against forum shopping under the Rules is to be executed by the petitioner. or even a Secretary’s Certificate containing the board resolution. the appellate courts generally will not interfere in the absence of manifest abuse of such discretion." the fact remains that no board resolution. or in the case of a corporation. Respondent explained to the trial court that its former counsel. was submitted to show that he was indeed authorized to file the said petition in the Court of Appeals. upon motion of petitioner. negligence and lack of vigilance. but not petitioner’s counsel whose professional services have been engaged to handle the subject case. This is not a sufficient ground. The certification made by Atty. It was correct for the trial court. A writ of preliminary injunction would become a prejudgment of a case only when it grants the main prayer in the complaint or responsive pleading. Respondent cannot find solace in its lame excuse of honest mistake which was. Moreover. Soriano. As such. The petition is granted. so much so that there is nothing left for the trial court to try except merely incidental matters. had honestly thought that the December 4. the sole object of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. Yatco. 1996 hearing had been rescheduled to December 11. the findings of fact and opinion of a court when issuing the writ of preliminary injunction are interlocutory in nature. 1996 per agreement with the petitioner’s counsel. 4. Even if Atty. Soriano was the "in-house counsel. tribunals.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. in the present case. A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence adduced by the applicant (herein petitioner). 3. The reason is that it is the petitioner who has personal knowledge whether there are cases of similar nature pending with the other courts. for only a "sampling" is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for its issuance pending the decision of the case on the merits. its duly authorized director or officer. Thus. Such fact does not obtain in the present case. Atty. Since Section 4 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Civil Procedure gives the trial courts sufficient discretion to evaluate the conflicting claims in an application for a provisional writ which often involves a factual determination. to consider the matter submitted for resolution on the basis of petitioner’s evidence. counsel for the respondent.

1 Petitioner Joaquin filed a motion for reconsideration. petitioner Francisco Joaquin. However. et al. he would endorse the matter to his attorneys for proper legal action. On July 14. and BJ PRODUCTIONS. dated July 19. No. and Casey Francisco. JOAQUIN. respondent Secretary of Justice Franklin M. 1991 in which he reiterated his demand and warned that. Drilon reversed the Assistant City Prosecutor's findings and directed him to move for the dismissal of the case against private respondents. Jr. IXL. Inc. 1992. On July 18. Hence. INC. which was produced by IXL Productions. January 28. 1971. WILLIAM ESPOSO.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. (BJPI) is the holder/grantee of Certificate of Copyright No. JR.D." and its resolution denying petitioner Joaquin's motion for reconsideration. of Rhoda and Me. On June 28. an information for violation of P. in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. On August 12. while watching television. . namely. 1999) This is a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the resolution of the Department of Justice. 1991. petitioner BJPI submitted to the National Library an addendum to its certificate of copyright specifying the show's format and style of presentation. William Esposo. (IXL). HONORABLE FRANKLIN DRILON. v. 1992. Santos FRANCISCO G. M922. a dating game show aired from 1970 to 1977. and CASEY FRANCISCO (GR No. Jr. 1991. however. informing Zosa that BJPI had a copyright to Rhoda and Me and demanding that IXL discontinue airing It's a Date. saw on RPN Channel 9 an episode of It's a Date. entitled "Gabriel Zosa. Facts: Petitioner BJ Productions. JR. prompting petitioner Joaquin to send a second letter on July 25. City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Francisco Joaquin. Meanwhile. Upon complaint of petitioners.. 92-27854 and assigned to Branch 104 thereof.. private respondent Zosa apologized to petitioner Joaquin and requested a meeting to discuss a possible settlement. vs. 49 was filed against private respondent Zosa together with certain officers of RPN Channel 9.. if IXL did not comply. 1973. Zosa. president and general manager of IXL. 1991. private respondent Zosa sought a review of the resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor before the Department of Justice.. GABRIEL ZOSA. Issues: Whether or not the format of the show Rhoda and me is copyrightable. private respondent Zosa sought to register IXL's copyright to the first episode of It's a Date for which it was issued by the National Library a certificate of copyright August 14. 1991. In a letter. continued airing It's a Date. 108946. Inc. but his motion denied by respondent Secretary of Justice on December 3. FELIPE MEDINA. president of BJPI. this petition. dated January 28. he wrote a letter to private respondent Gabriel M.. Felipe Medina.

and charts. plans. engraving. (H) Reproductions of a work of art. 2. (P) Dramatizations. musical or artistic works or of works of the Philippine government as herein defined. whether or not patentable. No. painting. and other works of art. scholarly. (F) Musical compositions. and gazetteers: (B) Periodicals. architecture. or artistic works or of works referred to in Section 9 of this Decree which by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations. dissertations prepared for oral delivery. (G) Works of drawing. sketches.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. and other works of applied art.D. (N) Computer programs. the acting form of which is fixed in writing or otherwise. (I) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture. arrangements and other alterations of literary. the same . sculpture. addresses. sermons. models or designs for works of art. (L) Photographic works and works produced by a process analogous to photography lantern slides. enumerates the classes of work entitled to copyright protection. pictorial illustrations advertising copies. Section 2 of P. (K) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character. (O) Prints. adaptations. to wit: Sec. which shall be protected as provided in Section 8 of this Decree. from the moment of creation. including composite and cyclopedic works. lithography. (Q) Collections of literary. manuscripts. subsist with respect to any of the following classes of works: (A) Books. labels tags. and box wraps. abridgements. The rights granted by this Decree shall. (M) Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings. (E) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions. 49. directories. with or without words. choreographic works and entertainments in dumb shows. Santos Held: The format of a show is not copyrightable. (C) Lectures. (J) Maps. (D) Letters. including pamphlets and newspapers. 10 otherwise known as the DECREE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. translations.

principle. P. procedure. This provision is substantially the same as §172 of the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF PHILIPPINES (R.A. no protection shall extend. This Court is of the opinion that petitioner BJPI's copyright covers audio-visual recordings of each episode of Rhoda and Me. method of operation. refers to finished works and not to concepts. the presentation of the master videotape in evidence was indispensable to the determination of the existence of probable cause.D. scholarly. video and audio. to wit: Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings. Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game shows is insufficient. The copyright does not extend to an idea. in enumerating what are subject to copyright. 49. §2. scientific and artistic works. Accordingly. As aptly observed by respondent Secretary of Justice: A television show includes more than mere words can describe because it involves a whole spectrum of visuals and effects. by the very nature of the subject of petitioner BJPI's copyright. 15 Thus. such that no similarity or dissimilarity may be found by merely describing the general copyright/format of both dating game shows. explained. For this reason. system. concept. administrative or legal nature. No. the investigating prosecutor should have the opportunity to compare the videotapes of the two shows. to any idea. system. 49. The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating game show.D. The format or mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of protected works in §2 of P. process. 49. . even if they are expressed. principle. The petition is DISMISSED. discovery or mere data as such. §2(M). regardless of the form in which it is described. news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information. the protection afforded by the law cannot be extended to cover them. 8293).D. illustrated. 175. or any official text of a legislative. No. or embodied in such work. explained. Santos to be protected as such in accordance with Section 8 of this Decree. illustrated or embodied in a work. — Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 172 and 173.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. No. the new INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES provides: Sec. as well as any official translation thereof. procedure. method or operation. as falling within the class of works mentioned in P. (R) Other literary. under this law. or discovery. concept. Unprotected Subject Matter.

Inc. Home Cable is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Unilink Communications Corporation (“Unilink”). it would have to initially ascertain whether there was arbitrary rechanneling which distorted and downgraded GMA’s signal. The case allegedly involved the same cause of action and the same parties. SkyCable and Sun Cable also asserted that it is the NTC that has primary jurisdiction over the issues raised in the complaint. The trial court held that the resolution of the legal issues raised in the complaint required the determination of highly technical. These factual questions would necessarily entail specialized knowledge in the fields of communications technology and . 2003. INC. Inc.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. (“GMA”) filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for damages against respondents ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (“ABSCBN”).. PILIPINO CABLE CORPORATION and PHILIPPINE HOME CABLE HOLDINGS. 160703. CENTRAL CATV. a company controlled by the Pension Trust Fund of the PLDT Employees (“PLDT Group”). INC. v. Inc. Santos GMA NETWORK. Moreover. On the other hand. Central CATV. SkyCable and Sun Cable moved for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of litis pendentia and forum-shopping since there was a similar case pending before the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) entitled “GMA Network. which relate to the operations of the cable companies. (“SkyCable”). The ascertainment of these facts. In its complaint. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION. Facts: Petitioner GMA Network. 2005) This is a Petition under Rule 41 in relation to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.. this petition. and Pilipino Cable Corporation”. Philippine Home Cable Holdings. In due course. (GR No. Philippine Home Cable Holdings. which is owned by Mediaquest Holdings. Inc. GMA had no cause of action against the two entities and failed to exhaust administrative remedies. would require the application of technical standards imposed by the NTC as well as determination of signal quality “within the limitations imposed by the technical state of the art”. GMA alleged that respondents engaged in unfair competition when the cable companies arbitrarily re-channeled petitioner’s cable television broadcast on February 1. before the trial court can resolve the issue of whether GMA is entitled to an award of damages. Held: In the case at bar. factual issues over which the NTC had primary jurisdiction. Inc. INC. September 23. it held that GMA had no cause of action against ABS-CBN. SkyCable and Sun Cable are whollyowned subsidiaries of Sky Vision Corporation (“Sky Vision”) which is allegedly controlled by Lopez. the trial court issued the assailed resolution dismissing the complaint. Inc. Additionally. except for ABS-CBN... Hence. Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in ruling that the NTC has primary jurisdiction over petitioner's complaint for damages and dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Inc. Central CATV. vs. in order to arrest and destroy its upswing performance in the television industry. (“Home Cable”) and Pilipino Cable Corporation (“Sun Cable”). Inc. GMA argued that respondents were able to perpetrate such unfair business practice through a common ownership and interlocking businesses.

provided that the same “does not infringe on the television and broadcast markets. it would nonetheless be proper for the courts to yield its jurisdiction in favor of an administrative body when the determination of underlying factual issues requires the special competence or knowledge of the latter.” While it is true that the regular courts are possessed of general jurisdiction over actions for damages. Santos engineering which the courts do not possess. It is also the agency tasked to grant certificates of authority to cable television operators. pursuant to its broader regulatory power of ensuring and promoting a “larger and more effective use of communications.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. The regulation of ownership of television and cable television companies is likewise within the exclusive concern of the NTC. radio and television broadcasting facilities” in order that the public interest may well be served. The NTC is mandated to maintain effective competition among private entities engaged in the operation of public service communications. It is the NTC which has the expertise and skills to deal with such matters. The petition is DENIED. .

Held: SEC. Issue: Whether or not the playing and signing of musical compositions which have been copyrighted under the provisions of the Copyright Law (Act 3134) inside the establishment of the defendant-appellee constitute a public performance for profit within the meaning and contemplation of the Copyright Law of the Philippines. whether or not appellee can be held liable therefor. Santos FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS. appellant demanded from the appellee payment of the necessary license fee for the playing and singing of aforesaid compositions but the demand was ignored. The lower court. INC. and assuming that there were indeed public performances for profit. 3. represent. March 16. 1987) Facts: Plaintiff-appellant is a non-profit association of authors. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals which as already stated certified the case to the Supreme Court for adjudication on the legal question involved. dismissed the complaint. produce. defendant-appellee is the operator of a restaurant known as "Alex Soda Foundation and Restaurant" where a combo with professional singers. Appellant filed a complaint with the lower court for infringement of copyright against defendant-appellee for allowing the playing in defendant-appellee's restaurant of said songs copyrighted in the name of the former. xxx xxx xxx AND PUBLISHERS.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L." On the other hand. or reproduce the copyrighted work in any manner or by any method whatever for profit or otherwise. perform. Said association is the owner of certain musical compositions among which are the songs entitled: "Dahil Sa Iyo". Accordingly. L-36402. if not reproduced in copies for sale. While not denying the playing of said copyrighted compositions in his establishment. were playing and singing the above-mentioned compositions without any license or permission from the appellant to play or sing the same. finding for the defendant. The proprietor of a copyright or his heirs or assigns shall have the exclusive right: xxx xxx xxx (c) To exhibit. appellee maintains that the mere singing and playing of songs and popular tunes even if they are copyrighted do not constitute an infringement. hired to play and sing musical compositions to entertain and amuse customers therein. AUTHORS BENJAMIN TAN (GR No. Defendant-appellee. "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin. in his answer.." "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" and "The Nearness Of You. vs. . countered that the complaint states no cause of action. composers and publishers duly organized under the Corporation Law of the Philippines and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. to sell any manuscripts or any record whatsoever thereof.

the combo was paid as independent contractors by the appellant. and are therefore beyond the protection of the Copyright Law. Indeed. The appealed decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila is AFFIRMED.D. Under the circumstances. it is clear that the musical compositions in question had long become public property. It is therefore obvious that the expenses entailed thereby are added to the overhead of the restaurant which are either eventually charged in the price of the food and drinks or to the overall total of additional income produced by the bigger volume of business which the entertainment was programmed to attract. or from 1943 and the songs "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin" and "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" both registered on July 10.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. 10) became popular in radios. A careful study of the records reveals that the song "Dahil Sa Iyo" which was registered on April 20. if the general public has made use of the object sought to be copyrighted for thirty (30) days prior to the copyright application the law deems the object to have been donated to the public domain and the same can no longer be copyrighted. 49. (Act 3134 amended by P. as amended). The testimonies of the witnesses at the hearing of this case on this subject were unrebutted by the appellant. 1955 had become popular twenty five (25) years prior to 1968. it is beyond question that the playing and singing of the combo in defendant-appellee's restaurant constituted performance for profit contemplated by the Copyright Law. Consequently. It will be noted that for the playing and singing the musical compositions involved. etc. appear to have been known and sang by the witnesses as early as 1965 or three years before the hearing in 1968. the music provided is for the purpose of entertaining and amusing the customers in order to make the establishment more attractive and desirable. Nevertheless. it is admitted that the patrons of the restaurant in question pay only for the food and drinks and apparently not for listening to the music. appellee cannot be said to have infringed upon the Copyright Law. Appellee's allegation that the composers of the contested musical compositions waived their right in favor of the general public when they allowed their intellectual creations to become property of the public domain before applying for the corresponding copyrights for the same is correct. No. As found by the trial court. 1966. juke boxes. 1956 (Brief for Appellant. Santos In the case at bar. . long before registration while the song "The Nearness Of You" registered on January 14. p.

plaintiff contracted with Austin Craig for the preparation and publication of an original article to be written by him concerning Mrs. copied and reproduced and published the article in the weekly issues of The Independent of December 24th and December 31." and delivered it to the plaintiff which paid him for it. to be published exclusively in the Philippine Education Magazine. as such owner the plaintiff has the exclusive right to print and publish the article in its magazine. Plaintiff printed and published the article in its issue of December. and that it gave notice in that issue "that all rights thereto were reserved". 1929) Facts: Plaintiff alleges that it is a domestic corporation and the proprietor and publisher of the monthly magazine Philippine Education Magazine. 3134 of the Philippine Legislature. and thereby became the exclusive owner of the article. 1927. without citing the source of its defendants. defendants should state that the subject article was taken from plaintiff’s magazine and to refrain from similar thefts in the future. January 29. The article was again published in the next issue of The Independent. among other things. Alindada. vs. Before ruling on the case. that the defendants threaten to. composite and cyclopedic works. which is entitled "An Act to protect intellectual property. 1927. Rizal. Issue: Whether or not the judgment of the lower court is correct. and the defendant. 1927. . Plaintiff alleges that they were damaged by reason of defendants' acts. R. includes books. Held: The question presented involves the legal construction of Act No. and for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants unlawfully and without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff appropriated. in violation of its rights. However. Jose Rizal. V. the lower court rendered judgment against defendant V. the plaintiff requested that in their next issue. ALINDADA (GR No. commentaries and critical studies. and that they be perpetually enjoined from the publication of any further articles without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff. Section 2 of the Act defines and enumerates what may be copyrighted which. Santos PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. Defendant Vicente Sotto. VICENTE SOTTO and V. INC. In December. and that by virtue thereof. is the editor of a weekly newspaper known as The Independent.. R. Alindala. and that it was on the market for sale in the early part of that month. L-30774. which is published in the City of Manila and of general circulation in the Philippine Islands. Upon discovery. manuscripts. R. and will continue appropriating and reproducing the article owned by the plaintiff. which is also published in the City of Manila and also of such general circulation. the said Craig prepared and wrote an original article entitled "The True Story of Mrs." and which is known as the Copyright Law of the Philippine Islands. the complaint against Vicente Sotto was dismissed. is the proprietor and publisher.

the real question involved is the construction which should be placed upon the second paragraph of section 5. or paragraphs in a book or other copyrighted works may be qouted or cited or reproduced for comment." In the instant case. News items. editorial paragraphs. But in either event. first." Analyzing the language used. and wipe out.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. the plaintiff did not give notice of its copyright. define and certain." and specifically says that in either event "the source of the reproduction or original reproduced shall be cited. editorial paragraphs. The language is plain. take from it. or criticism. unless they contain a notice of copyright. It is admitted that the plaintiff notified the defendant "that we reserve all rights and you infringe on them at your peril. and articles in periodicals. but the source of the reproduction or original reproduced shall be cited." and is not confined or limited to case in which there is "a notice of copyright." to those which have a notice or copyright only. that such news items. the defendant published the article in question. or." The court construed the language found in the act. without giving "the source of the reproduction. clear. And section 5 says: Lines. It will also be noted that in the instant case. and articles in periodicals may be reproduced. unless they contain a notice that their publication is reserved. dissertation. but it did notify the defendant that in the publication of the article "we reserved all rights. which is all the more apparent by the use of the word "or" after the word "reserved. for the simple reason that it did not have a copyright. it never would have said if "they contain a notice that their publication is reserved. In case of musical works part of little extent may also be reproduced. the law specifically provides that "the source of the reproduction or original reproduced shall be cited. . and articles in periodicals may also be reproduced unless they contain a notice that their publication is reserved or a notice of copyright." which was legally equivalent to a notice "that their publication is reserved." and the defendant published the article in question without citing "the source of the reproduction". the defendant had the legal right to publish the article in question by giving "the source of the reproduction. passages." The plaintiff bought and paid for the article and published it with the notice that "we reserve all rights. editorial paragraphs." If it had been the purpose and intent of the Legislature to limit the reproduction of "news items. the words "that their publication is reserved. it says. second. Hence." To give that paragraph any other construction would eliminate. Santos Section 4 provides: For the purpose of this Act articles and other writings published without the names of the authors or under pseudonyms are considered as the property of the publishers. Judgment of the lower court is affirmed. that may also be reproduced." and this court has no legal right to do that." and that after receipt of the notice. and this court has no legal right to say that the Legislature did not mean what it said when it used those words.

add something to it. April 1. caused irreparable injuries to the plaintiff. plaintiff excepted to the order overruling it. For this reason the court held that the plaintiff had no right of action and that the remedy sought by him could not be granted. and was issued to him in 1890. absolving the defendant from the complaint. 1879. which has been published and offered for sale by the plaintiff for about twenty-five years or more. AMERTO PAGLINAWAN (GR No. The said act of the defendant. The defendant denied generally each and every allegation of the complaint and prayed the court to absolve him from the complaint. Held: Article 7 provides: Nobody may reproduce another person's work without the owner's consent. Said motion having been overruled. Therefore. defendant reproduced said literary work. or improve any edition thereof. according to the laws regulating literary properties.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. which is a violation of article 7 of the Law of January 10. the registered owner and author of a literary work entitled Diccionario HispanoTagalog (Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary) published in the City of Manila in 1889 by the printing establishment La Opinion. The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the ground that the judgment was against the law and the weight of the evidence. in order that said article may be violated. who was surprised when. It appears from the evidence that although the plaintiff did not introduce at the trial the certificate of registration of his property rights to said work which. the . according to said rules. The ground of the decision appealed from is that a comparison of the plaintiff's dictionary with that of the defendant does not show that the latter is an improper copy of the former. improperly copied the greater part thereof in the work published by him and entitled Diccionariong Kastila-Tagalog (Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary). and appealed the case to the Supreme Court upon a bill of exceptions. on Intellectual Property. was kept in the Central Government of these Islands. 1879. as the court below seems to have understood. It is enough that another's work has been reproduced without the consent of the owner. Santos PEDRO SERRANO LAKTAW vs. 1918) Facts: The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was. or improve any edition thereof. it is not necessary. the court rendered judgment. that a work should be an improper copy of another work previously published. Without the consent of the plaintiff. After trial. but without making any special pronouncement as to costs. even though it be only to annotate. even merely to annotate or add anything to it. Issue: Whether or not the court below erred in not declaring that the defendant had reproduced the plaintiff's work and that the defendant had violated article 7 of the Law of January 10. L-11937. on publishing his new work entitled Diccionario Tagalog-Hispano (Tagalog-Spanish Dictionary) he learned of the fact. on Intellectual Property.

who is the absolute owner of his own work. these facts constitute sufficient proof. Santos same having been lost during the revolution against Spain. or artistic work. or to improve any edition thereof. the author of a literary. which was the prerequisite to the enjoyment of the benefits thereof according to the preceding articles. which is alleged in the complaint to have been violated by the defendant. Even considering that said Law of January 10. has the right to exploit it and dispose thereof at will. 1879. It was so held in the Treaty of Paris of December 10. after an examination thereof by the permanent committee of censors. to print and publish said dictionary. there exists the exclusive right of the author. ceased to operate in these Islands. and the necessary license granted to him. not even to annotate or add something to it. to produce it. which examination was made. and no trace relative to the issuance of said certificate being obtainable in the Division of Archives of the Executive Bureau on account of the loss of the corresponding records. at the time of the exchange of the ratification of said Treaty. Judgment of the lower court is reversed and order the defendant to withdraw from sale.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. taken in connection with the permission granted him by the Governor-General on November 24. among which is article 7. shall continue to be respect. artistic. 1879. as prayed for in the complaint. according to article 2 of the Law of January 10. under the circumstances of the case. according to article 7 of said law. when it declared in article 13 thereof that the rights to literary. According to article 428 of the Civil Code. without his permission. between Spain and the United States. and industrial properties acquired by the subject of Spain in the Island of Cuba and in Puerto Rico and the Philippines and other ceded territories. nobody may reproduce it. 1898. yet as in the first page of said dictionary the property right of the plaintiff was reserved by means of the words "Es propiedad del autor" (All rights reserved). showing that said plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of article 36 of said law. . the right of the plaintiff to invoke said law in support of the action instituted by him in the present case cannot be disputed. as they have not been overcome by any evidence on the part of the defendant. 1889. It was so held superseded by that of the United States. upon the termination of Spanish sovereignty and the substitution thereof by that of the United States of America. In relation to this right. and consequently. all stock of his work above-mentioned. scientific. and to pay the costs of first instance.

Issue: Whether or not Sony is liable for contributory infringement.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. The question presented is whether the sale of petitioners' copying equipment to the general public violates any of the rights conferred upon respondents by the Copyright Act. those findings reveal that the average member of the public uses a VTR principally to record a program he cannot view as it is being televised and then to watch it once at a later time. 417 (1984) Facts: Petitioners manufacture and sell home video tape recorders. OF AMER. Instead. For the same reason. After a lengthy trial. were unable to prove that the practice has impaired the commercial value of their copyrights or has created any likelihood of future harm. they sought money damages and an equitable accounting of profits from petitioners. as well as an injunction against the manufacture and marketing of Betamax VTR's. Respondents alleged that some individuals had used Betamax video tape recorders (VTR's) to record some of respondents' copyrighted works which had been exhibited on commercially sponsored television and contended that these individuals had thereby infringed respondents' copyrights. Some members of the general public use video tape recorders sold by petitioners to record some of these broadcasts. Respondents commenced this copyright infringement action against petitioners in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 1976. there is no basis in the Copyright Act upon which respondents can hold petitioners liable for distributing VTR. a significant amount of television programming may be used in this manner without objection from the owners of the copyrights on the programs. The . Respondents own the copyrights on some of the television programs that are broadcast on the public airwaves. and that the plaintiffs were unable to prove otherwise. who do assert objections to time-shifting in this litigation. even the two respondents in this case. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS. The majority of the court riled to reverse the Ninth Circuit in favor of Sony hingied on the possibility that the technology in question had significant non-infringing uses. Held: No. holding petitioners liable for contributory infringement and ordering the District Court to fashion appropriate relief. For that reason. Respondents sought no relief against any Betamax consumer.. INC. the District Court denied respondents all the relief they sought and entered judgment for petitioners.s to the general public." enlarges the television viewing audience. Respondents further maintained that petitioners were liable for the copyright infringement allegedly committed by Betamax consumers because of petitioners' marketing of the Betamax VTR's. as well as a large number of other broadcasts. 464 U. An explanation of the rejection of respondents' unprecedented attempt to impose copyright liability upon the distributors of copying equipment requires a quite detailed recitation of the findings of the District Court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment on respondents' copyright claim. This practice. Given these findings.S. known as "time-shifting. Santos SONY CORP. v. In summary.

. Indeed. Such an expansion of the copyright privilege is beyond the limits of the grants authorized by Congress. the court need not explore all the different potential uses of the machine and determine whether or not they would constitute infringement. noncommercial time-shifting in the home. if affirmed. and (B) because the District Court's factual findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use. In order to resolve that question. The court further ruled that the sale of sale of copying equipment. to collect royalties on the sale of such equipment. does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate. holding that respondents are entitled to enjoin the distribution of VTR's. it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Santos Court of Appeals. Rather.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. unobjectionable purposes. Moreover. or to obtain other relief. It does so both (A) because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing it for their programs. For one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard. like the sale of other articles of commerce. however it is understood: private. in order to resolve this case. they need only consider whether on the basis of the facts as found by the District Court a significant number of them would be noninfringing. would enlarge the scope of respondents' statutory monopolies to encompass control over an article of commerce that is not the subject of copyright protection. The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses. the court need not give precise content to the question of how much use is commercially significant.

40) unless it appears. Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in awarding attorney’s fees against petitioner. RAMOS AND SOCORRO C. Second Year. March 29. petitioner Phoenix Publishing House. Through a proper search warrant obtained after petitioner was convinced that respondents were selling spurious . Alipio. It was on the strength of these facts that petitioner filed the complaint against respondents.F. judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff. shows that petitioner secured the corresponding copyrights for its books. JOSE T.. Alvear. at all events. L-32339. 1988) This is a petition for review assigning several errors to have been allegedly committed by respondent court in affirming the decision of the lower court dismissing the plaintiff’s action and rendering judgment in favor of herein respondents. Van Houten and Cornista and first published in 1961. contrary to the fundamental rules settled by jurisprudence that a penalty should not be set on the right to litigate (Tan Ti v. this case. 26 Phil. Phil N. After trial. These copyrights were found to be all right by the Copyright Office and petitioner was always conceded to be the real owner thereof. 103 Phil. Held: The petition was given due course "but only insofar as the award of attorney's fees is concerned. Facts: This petition originated in an action for damages arising from an alleged infringement of petitioner's copyright for two books entitled "General Science Today for Philippine Schools. Camaganacan. 16 SCRA 321) which reason the decision in question does not indicate (pp. 719) and. petitioner contends that respondent court erred in assigning attorney's fees against petitioner for no other apparent reason than for losing its case. Van Houten. which does not in petitioner's case. First Year" and "General Science Today for Philippine Schools. The law limits the instances in which attomey's fees may be recovered under Article 2208 of the Civil Code. and L." both authored by Gilman. From the aforesaid judgment. 97 Phil. Rollo). However. published. the court must state the reason for the award of attorney's fees (Buan v. 566) nor should counsel's fees be awarded everytime a party wins a lawsuit (Jimenez v. doing business as National Book Store. now herein private respondents 'reprinted. Bucoy. that the suit instituted by the losing party was clearly unfounded (Peralta et al. Santos PHOENIX PUBLISHING HOUSE. Gilman." On this issue. RAMOS. Named plaintiffs as "copyright proprietors of said books" were Phoenix Publishing House. moral and exemplary damages as well as for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. The evidence on record however. appealed to the Court of Appeals. INC vs. the appellate court affirmed the decision of the lower court. distributed and sold said books in gross violation of the Copyright Law and of plaintiffs' rights to their damage and prejudice" and prayed for actual. 11-12. Inc.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. The complaint charged that defendants. Hence. Purita DancelCornista. v. Inc. and COURT OF APPEALS (GR No.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. . it cannot be said that the case is clearly an unfounded civil action or proceeding. Santos copies of its copyrighted books. The decision of respondent Court of Appeals is MODIFIED by deleting therefrom the award of attorney's fees against petitioner. In the face of these facts. the books were seized from respondents and were Identified to be spurious.

production orders. duly served Search Warrant No. Agents from the NBI. is a merger of Fox. NBI Agent III Lauro C. Galactic. and "The Ten Commandments" owned by Paramount Pictures. in connection with its anti-piracy campaign.. went to the office of FGT to have the copyrighted motion pictures "Cleopatra" owned by Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. paraphernalia. accessories. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS. and WARNER BROS. Reyes and Mamerto Espartero. rewinders. ERIC APOLONIO. allegedly an NBI agent. and Technica Video. ORION PICTURES CORP. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP. a. FLORES. PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP. vs. rental. FGT filed an urgent motion for the immediate release of equipment and accessories "not covered" by the search warrant. television sets. Inc. materials. with the assistance of the personnel of the Videogram Regulatory Board headed by Elmer San Pascual. return slips. the MPAA sought the NBI's "urgent assistance in the conduct of search and seizure operations in Metro Manila and elsewhere".. Inventories of these seized articles were then prepared and copies thereof were furnished Jess Ayson. Facts: Petitioners herein are all foreign corporations organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America and represented in the Philippines by their attorney-in-fact. statements of order. YOTOKO (GR No. Rebecca Benitez-Cruz of the Motion Picture Association of America.. JUDGE ALFREDO C. 45 on the operators or representatives of FGT. equipment. NBI and private agents conducted discreet surveillance operations on certain video establishments. In a letter. Specifically complaining of the "unauthorized sale. without prejudice to the filing of a motion to quash the said search warrant. Ronaldo Lim. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY. and other paraphernalia or pieces of machinery which had been seized by operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation by virtue of a search warrant. ONGYANCO. (FGT).. FGT VIDEO NETWORK. UNITED ARTISTS CORP. reproduction and/or disposition of copyrighted film". June 29. tape head cleaners. Based on the pieces of evidence gathered. tape head cleaners. Santos COLUMBIA PICTURES. with Manalang and Rebecca Benitez-Cruz as witnesses. On the basis of said letter. ALFREDO C. 1988. among them private respondent FGT Video Network. lodged a complaint before then Director Antonio Carpio of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against certain video establishments for violation of Presidential Decree No.. Private respondent FGT Video Network. as amended by Presidential Decree No. INC. the MPAA.. Inc.a. 78631. flyers. accessories. video cassette recorders. rewinders. Manalang also had MGM's copyrighted film "Walk Like a Man" reproduced or retaped by FGT. Also seized were machines and equipment.. applied for a search warrant with the Regional Trial Court in Pasig which was subsequently granted. and posters. In the course of the search of the premises of FGT. reproduced or retaped in video format. . Reyes. Inc. INC..k. production manager of FGT. MANUEL MENDOZA. 1993) This is a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the order of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City directing the immediate release and return of television sets. the NBI agents found and seized various video tapes of duly copyrighted motion pictures or films owned and exclusively distributed by petitioners. HON. video prints. 49 (Protection of Intellectual Property). INC. Danilo Manalang. led by Lauro C. SUSAN YANG and EDUARDO A. Inc. INC.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L.

Examination of complainant. personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers. Held: The right to security against unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed under Section 2. video cassette recorders. vs. 2. Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides: Sec. before issuing the warrant. 45 fails to satisfy the test of legality. we upheld the legality of the order of the lower court lifting the search warrant issued under circumstances similar to those obtaining in the case at bar. — A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. excluding video cassette tapes. In 20th Century Fox Film Corp. in writing and under oath the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted. we find that Search Warrant No. equipment and other machines or paraphernalias to the defendants. 3. More so because the Court has previously decided a case dealing with virtually the same search warrant. measured by the aforegoing constitutional and legal provisions as well as the existing jurisprudence on the matter. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. Court of Appeals (164 SCRA 655 [1988]). Issue: Whether or not the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the immediate release and return of some of the items seized by virtue of the search warrant. wherein therein petitioner is also one of the petitioners herein. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Respondent court also ordered the inventory of all articles returned with individual descriptions "to evidence their existence" copies of which inventory should be furnished the NBI and the court. this case. Sec. accessories. Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provide for the requisites in the issuance of search warrants: Sec. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. rewinders.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. record. houses. Thus. Withal. Santos The lower court granted FGT's motion and ordered the immediate release and return of the "television sets. 4. tape head cleaners. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. — The judge must. Hence. Requisites for issuing search warrant. .

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. including these articles without specification and/or particularity that they were really instruments in violating an Anti-Piracy law makes the search warrant too general which could result in the confiscation of all items found in any video store. Santos A striking similarity between the case at bar and 20th Century Fox is the fact that Search Warrant No. Video Cassettes Recorders. rewinders. it is constitutionally objectionable. As the search warrant is in the nature of a general one. accessories. The petition is DISMISSED. rewinders and tape cleaners are articles which can be found in a video tape store engaged in the legitimate business of lending or renting out betamax tapes. equipments and other machines used or intended to be used in the unlawful reproduction. distribution of the above-mentioned video tapes which she is keeping and concealing in the premises above-described. In consequence. In short. Hence. Far from being despotic or arbitrary. to wit: (c) Television sets. video cassette recorders. contains an almost identical description as the warrant issued in the 20th Century Fox case. The language used in paragraph (c) of Search Warrant No. respondent judge must be commended for rectifying his error when he found that his initial conclusions were inaccurate and erroneous. these articles and appliances are generally connected with. sale. 45 is thus too all-embracing as to include all the paraphernalia of FGT in the operation of its business. or related to a legitimate business not necessarily involving piracy of intellectual property or infringement of copyright laws. specifically paragraph (c) thereof describing the articles to be seized. respondent court was merely correcting its own erroneous conclusions in issuing Search Warrant No. colliding as they did with the constitutional rights of private respondent. tape head cleaners. rental/lease. 45. . we held in said case: Television sets. 45 when it ordered the return of the seized television sets and other paraphernalia specified in the motion filed by FGT. On the propriety of the seizure of the articles above-described.

the objects seized during the April 1. was thus in order. it granted BFTI’s Motion for Reconsideration of its April 18. 2007) This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 which assails the Orders of the court a quo. (BFTI) wherein they seized various items. Macatlang of the Philippine National Police. INC. BRIGHT FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES. The petition is denied. INC. is in order. . Held: Yes. February 15. Sony Computer Entertainment. and that a bond is not required in the application for their issuance. vs. of which Search Warrant Nos. however. The RTC’s finding that the two-witness rule governing the execution of search warrant was not complied with.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. has the right to participate in search warrant proceedings. When SCEI then opposed BFTI’s Urgent Motion to Quash and/or to Suppress or Exclude Evidence and Return Seized Articles. 2005 Order by Order of August 8. 169156. 2005. Bright Future Technologies. The RTC. The RTC did not thus err in ordering the quashal of the search warrants. BFTI subsequently filed an Urgent Motion to Quash and/or to Exclude or Suppress Evidence and Return Seized Articles. following which a raid was conducted on the premises of respondent. Eugenio. Their return. found that the two-witness rule under Section 8 of Rule 126 was violated and that the searching team’s use of a bolt cutter to open the searched premises was unnecessary. (SCEI). hence. on motion of BFTI. Inc. Jr. Facts: On application of Inspector Rommel G. which rule is mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution of the search warrant. BFTI filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of its motion to quash. The RTC denied BFTI’s motion to quash the warrants. Santos SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT. Inc. it finding that they were regularly issued and implemented. Issue: Whether or not a private complainant. eight search warrants for copyright and trademark infringement. (GR No. however. As the two-witness rule was not complied with. the RTC correctly recognized the participation of SCEI in the proceedings. were issued by the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Executive Judge Antonio M. 05-6336 and 05-6337 are relevant to the present case. after a complaint was received from petitioner. like SCEI. 2005 search are inadmissible in evidence.

HABANA. By chance they came upon the book of respondent Robles and upon perusal of said book they were surprised to see that the book was strikingly similar to the contents. and (b) the resolution denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. respondents ignored the demands. ALICIA L. However. 1988. produced through their combined resources and efforts.. scheme of presentation. Issue: Whether or not. entitled COLLEGE ENGLISH FOR TODAY (CET for brevity). FELICIDAD C. Inc. in which the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint for infringement and/or unfair competition and damages but deleted the award for attorney’s fees.. the trial court rendered its judgment dismissing the complaint. (GR No. are the author/publisher and distributor/seller of another published work entitled “DEVELOPING ENGLISH PROFICIENCY” (DEP for brevity). petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court. in violation of Section 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1999) This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the (a) decision of the Court of Appeals. thematic and sequential similarity between DEP and CET. petitioners scouted and looked around various bookstores to check on other textbooks dealing with the same subject matter. FERNANDO vs. In the course of revising their published works. ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO. respondents committed no copyright infringement. Facts: Petitioners are authors and copyright owners of duly issued certificates of copyright registration covering their published works. 49. Petitioners subsequently filed their notice of appeal with the trial court. the Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of respondents Robles and Goodwill Trading Co. hence. However. if not all together a copy of petitioners’ book. Series 1. Respondent Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co. After the trial on the merits. Inc. Santos PACITA I. July 19. which is a case of plagiarism and copyright infringement. CINCO and JOVITA N. Makati.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. Hence. petitioners found that several pages of the respondent’s book are similar. despite the apparent textual.. and WORKBOOK FOR COLLEGE FRESHMAN ENGLISH. CET. INC. illustrations and illustrative examples in their own book. . on July 7. Whether or not respondent Robles abused a writer’s right to fair use. this petition. Books 1 and 2 (1985 edition) which book was covered by copyrights issued to them. Books 1 and 2. a complaint for “Infringement and/or unfair competition with damages” against private respondents. After an itemized examination and comparison of the two books (CET and DEP). Petitioners then made demands for damages against respondents and also demanded that they cease and desist from further selling and distributing to the general public the infringed copies of respondent Robles’ works. 131522.

Quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified by the purpose. of anything the sole right to do which is conferred by statute on the owner of the copyright. Here. without the consent of the owner of the copyright. The copying must produce an “injurious effect”. the numerous pages that the petitioners presented showing similarity in the style and the manner the books were presented and the identical examples can not pass as similarities merely because of technical consideration. It may be correct that the books being grammar books may contain materials similar as to some technical contents with other grammar books. copying alone is not what is prohibited. there is a clear case of appropriation of copyrighted work for her benefit that respondent Robles committed. therefore. The complaint for copyright infringement was filed at the time that Presidential Decree No. She circulated the book DEP for commercial use and did not acknowledge petitioners as her source. In cases of infringement.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. In the case at bar. the injury consists in that respondent Robles lifted from petitioners’ book materials that were the result of the latter’s research work and compilation and misrepresented them as her own. SC believe that even if petitioners and respondent Robles were of the same background in terms of teaching experience and orientation. or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated by another. or piracy. consists in the doing by any person. Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private domain owned and occupied by the owner of the copyright. such as the segment about the “Author Card”. In determining the question of infringement. the protection of copyrights is governed by Republic Act No. the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted work is an important consideration.1 (b). Santos Held: SC finds the petition impressed with merit. there is no question that petitioners presented several pages of the books CET and DEP that more or less had the same contents. that is sufficient in point of law to constitute piracy. protected by law. and infringement of copyright. and her failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of petitioners’ copyrights. it is not necessary that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have been copied. At present. it is not an excuse for them to be identical even in examples contained in their books. If so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished. To constitute infringement. 8293. A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if not identical with the text of CET. Petitioners’ work as authors is the product of their long and assiduous research and for another to represent it as her own is injury enough. if . all laws dealing with the protection of intellectual property rights have been consolidated and as the law now stands. This is precisely what the law on copyright protected. under Section 184. The similarities in examples and material contents are so obviously present in this case. In copyrighting books the purpose is to give protection to the intellectual product of an author. which is a synonymous term in this connection. including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries are allowed provided that the source and the name of the author. and. Robles’ act of lifting from the book of petitioners substantial portions of discussions and examples. 49 was in force. Hence. However.

. al. the least that respondent Robles could have done was to acknowledge petitioners Habana et. The final product of an author’s toil is her book. Santos appearing on the work.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By: Jeffrey L. In the case at bar. To allow another to copy the book without appropriate acknowledgment is injury enough. The petition is hereby GRANTED. as the source of the portions of DEP. are mentioned.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->