This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Inc. (BJPI) was the holder of copyright over the show Rhoda and Me. It holds rights over the show’s format and style of presentation. In 1991, BJPI’s president Francisco Joaquin saw on TV RPN 9’s show It’s a Date, which is basically the same as Rhoda and Me. He eventually sued Gabriel Zosa, the manager of the show It’s a Date. Zosa later sought a review of the prosecutor’s resolution before the Secretary of Justice (Drilon). Drilon reversed the findings of the fiscal and directed him to dismiss the case against Zosa. ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of Drilon is valid. HELD: Yes. The essence of copyright infringement is the copying, in whole or in part, of copyrightable materials as defined and enumerated in Section 2 of PD. No. 49 (Copyright Law). Apart from the manner in which it is actually expressed, however, the idea of a dating game show is a non-copyrightable material. Ideas, concepts, formats, or schemes in their abstract form clearly do not fall within the class of works or materials susceptible of copyright registration as provided in PD. No. 49. What is covered by BJPI’s copyright is the specific episodes of the show Rhoda and Me. Further, BJPI should have presented the master videotape of the show in order to show the linkage between the copyright show (Rhoda and Me) and the infringing show (It’s a Date). This is based on the th ruling in 20 Century Fox vs CA (though this has been qualified by Columbia Pictures vs CA, this is still good law). Though BJPI did provide a lot of written evidence and description to show the linkage between the shows, the same were not enough. A television show includes more than mere words can describe because it involves a whole spectrum of visuals and effects, video and audio, such that no similarity or dissimilarity may be found by merely describing the general copyright/format of both dating game shows. KHO v CA Intellectual Property – Law on Copyright – Proper Subjects of Copyright Elidad Kho is the owner of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory and she was also the holder of copyrights over Chin Chun Su and its Oval Facial Cream Container/Case. She also bought the patent rights over the Chin Chun Su & Device and Chin Chun Su for medicated cream from one Quintin Cheng, who was the assignee of Shun Yi Factory – a Taiwanese factory actually manufacturing Chin Chun Su products. Kho filed a petition for injunction against Summerville General Merchandising and Company to enjoin the latter from advertising and selling Chin Chun Su products, in similar containers as that of Kho, for this is misleading the public and causing Kho to lose income; the petition is also to enjoin Summerville from infringing upon Kho’s copyrights. Summerville in their defense alleged that they are the exclusive and authorized importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun Su products; that Shun Yi even authorized Summerville to register its trade name Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream with the Philippine Patent Office; that Quintin Cheng, from home Kho acquired her patent rights, had been terminated by Shun Yi. ISSUE: Whether or not Kho has the exclusive right to use the trade name and its container. HELD: No. Kho 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 (not copyright like what she registered for) inasmuch 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. Kho’s copyright and patent registration of the name and container would not guarantee her the right to the 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. CHING VS SALINAS G.R. No. 161295 June 29, 2005 FACTS: Jessie G. Ching is the owner and general manager of Jeshicris Manufacturing Co., the maker and manufacturer of a Utility Model, described as "Leaf Spring EyeBushing for Automobile" made up of plastic.On September 4, 2001, Ching and Joseph Yu were issued by the National LibraryCertificates of Copyright Registration and Deposit of the said work described therein as "Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile."
MANLY filed a petition for review of certiorari in the Court of Appeals but was later on denied. They aver that the models are not original. the personal properties described in the search warrants are mechanical works. have generally been denied copyright protection unless they are separable from the useful article. In actuality. both reckoned from the date of the application. and third.. the requisite of "inventive step" in a patent for invention is not required. for which a patent for invention is. Dadodette Enterprise FACTS: On March 17. the provisions on utility model dispense with its substantive examination and prefer for a less complicated system. ISSUE: WON the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile is a work of art HELD: No copyright granted by law can be said to arise in favor of the petitioner despite the issuance of the certificates of copyright registration and the deposit of the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion. Being plain automotive spare parts that must conform to the original structural design of the components they seek to replace. A utility model varies from an invention." It bears stressing that there is no copyright protection for works of applied art or industrial design which have aesthetic or artistic features that cannot be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of the article.Quezon City. useful articles. likewise. or an improvement of any of the aforesaid. 2003 the trial court granted the motion to quash and declared the search warrant issued as null and void. No. This is the reason why its object is sometimes described as a device or useful object. not among the classes protected under Sec. RTC. They are not even artistic creations with incidental utilitarian functions or works incorporated in a useful article. the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion are not ornamental.10 of R. the maximum term of protection is only seven years compared to a patent which is twenty years. but was later on denied for lack of merit. the principal function of which is utility sans any aesthetic embellishment. is protected by copyright law. Functional components of useful articles. 2003. on at least three aspects: first. Branch 83 issued a search warrant against Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center after finding reasonable grounds that respondents violated Sections 172 and 217 of Republic Act (RA) No. or may relate to.1 and 177. 8293. or process. However. 2003. and as such are the proper subject of a patent. regardless of whether it is a creation with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article produced on an industrial scale.A utility model is a technical solution to a problem in any field of human activity which is new and industrially applicable. 8293. albeit with no artistic design or value.8293). second. Sr. nor artistic works. Manly Sportswear Manufacturing. They lack the decorative quality or value that must characterize authentic works of applied art. a utility model refers to an invention in the mechanical field. After denial of the motion for reconsideration. they are considered automotive spare parts and pertain to technology. the petitioner’s models are not wor ks of applied art.3of Republic Act (R. . It was alleged that the respondents therein reproduced and distributed the said models penalized under Sections 177. the law refers to a "work of applied art which is an artistic creation. available. that the author’s intellectual creation. no matter how artistically designed. not copyright. It may be. They are utility models. Inc vs. Respondents then moved to quash and annul the search warrant claiming that the sporting goods manufactured by and/or registered in the name MANLY are ordinary hence.) No. The respondents averred that the works covered by the certificates issued by the National Library are not artistic in nature. MANLY filed a motion for reconsideration on August 11. 172 of RA 8293. We agree with the contention of the petitioner (citing Section 17 1. a product.A. the NBI filed applications for search warrants in the RTC of Manila against William Salinas. and the officers and members of the Board of Directors of Wilaware Product Corporation. In this case. Essentially.After due investigation. On June 10. ISSUE:W/N the copyrighted products of MANLY are original creations subject to the protection of RA 8293.A.
2. pp. p. Resolution. hired to play and sing musical compositions to entertain and amuse customers therein. pp.: Plaintiff-appellant is a non-profit association of authors. validity and originality will not be presumed since the copyrighted products of MANLY are not original creations considering that these products are readily available in the market under various brands. The copyright certificates issued in favor of MANLY constitute a prima facie evidence of validity and ownership. dismissed the complaint (Record on Appeal. vs. 38). 1967. Rule 7 of the Copyrights Safeguards and Regulations FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS.. Accordingly. 25). appellant raised the following Assignment of Errors: I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS OF THE APPELLANT WERE IN THE NATURE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY WHEN THEY WERE COPYRIGHTED OR REGISTERED. The petition is devoid of merit. Moreover. countered that the complaint states no cause of action. III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PLAYING AND SINGING OF COPYRIGHTED MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS IN THE SODA FOUNTAIN AND RESTAURANT OF THE APPELLEE ARE NOT PUBLIC PERFORMANCES FOR PROFIT OF THE SAID COMPOSITIONS WITHIN THE MEANING AND CONTEMPLATION OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW. p. defendant-appellee is the operator of a restaurant known as "Alex Soda Foundation and Restaurant" where a combo with professional singers.R. While not denying the playing of said copyrighted compositions in his establishment." On the other hand. "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin. Rollo. presumption of validity is not created when a sufficient proof or evidence exist that may cast a doubt on the copyright validity. II THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS OF THE APPELLANT WERE PLAYED AND SUNG IN THE SODA FOUNTAIN AND RESTAURANT OF THE APPELLEE BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND ONLY UPON THE REQUEST OF CUSTOMERS. PARAS. IV THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE APPELLEE IS LIABLE TO THE APPELLANT FOR FOUR (4) SEPARATE INFRINGEMENTS. Resolution of the Supreme Court of February 18. A and B). In its brief in the Court of Appeals.RULING: No. plaintiff-appellant. Rollo. ." "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" and "The Nearness Of You. In the case at bar. Said association is the owner of certain musical compositions among which are the songs entitled: "Dahil Sa Iyo". were playing and singing the above-mentioned compositions without any license or permission from the appellant to play or sing the same. 46373-R. no copyright accrues in favor of MANLY despite the issuance of the copyright certificate this purely serves as a notice of recording and registration of the work and is not a conclusive proof of copyright ownership as provided in Sec. appellant demanded from the appellee payment of the necessary license fee for the playing and singing of aforesaid compositions but the demand was ignored. AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS. in his answer. finding for the defendant. NO. appellee maintains that the mere singing and playing of songs and popular tunes even if they are copyrighted do not constitute an infringement (Record on Appeal. INC. (Resolution. defendant-appellee. 36. Court of Appeals. J. composers and publishers duly organized under the Corporation Law of the Philippines and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. However. (Brief for Appellant. p. 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. on November 7. CA-G. 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. BENJAMIN TAN. 1973. Rollo. The lower court. 11. Defendant-appellee. p. Hence. 32-36) under the provisions of Section 3 of the Copyright Law (Act 3134 of the Philippine Legislature).
.The principal issues in this case are 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. et al. It is true that the music is not the sole object. pp. perform. The defendant conducts his place of business for profit. 2d. 4489 25 F. If it pays. They are part of a total for which the public pays.. Whether it pays or not. the music provided is for the purpose of entertaining and amusing the customers in order to make the establishment more attractive and desirable (Record on Appeal. 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. 21). and the music is performed for profit (Ibid. by persons employed by the proprietor. p. The proprietor of a copyright or his heirs or assigns shall have the exclusive right: xxx xxx xxx (c) To exhibit. Justice Holmes elaborated thus: If the rights under the copyright are infringed only by a performance where money is taken at the door. and if the instrument he plays on is a piano plus a broadcasting apparatus. " The word "perform" as used in the Act has been applied to "One who plays a musical composition on a piano. and that is enough. et al. Russon No. xxx xxx xxx It maintains that playing or singing a musical composition is universally accepted as performing the musical composition and that playing and singing of copyrighted music in the soda fountain and restaurant of the appellee for the entertainment of the customers although the latter do not pay for the music but only for the food and drink constitute performance for profit under the Copyright Law (Brief for the Appellant. (Ibid. 242 U. but upon the other. but neither is the food. and assuming that there were indeed public performances for profit. Series 367). produce. they are very imperfectly protected. 3.. If music did not pay. In a similar case." (Herbert v.. if not reproduced in copies for sale. v. Hillard Hotel Co. to sell any manuscripts or any record whatsoever thereof. the combo was paid as independent contractors by the appellant (Record ..S. the music is furnished and used by the orchestra for the purpose of inducing the public to patronize the establishment and pay for the entertainment in the purchase of food and drinks. it has been held that "The playing of music in dine and dance establishment which was paid for by the public in purchases of food and drink constituted "performance for profit" within a Copyright Law. which probably could be got cheaper elsewhere. so that waves are thrown out. As found by the trial court. et al. the purpose of employing it is profit. it would be given up. The object is a repast in surroundings that to people having limited power of conversation or disliking the rival noise. Performances not different in kind from those of the defendants could be given that might compete with and even destroy the success of the monopoly that the law intends the plaintiffs to have. whether or not appellee can be held liable therefor. In the case at bar. p. then also he is performing the musical composition. give a luxurious pleasure not to be had from eating a silent meal. In delivering the opinion of the Court in said two cases. 319). Supp. Duncan. 590-591). 594). it pays out of the public's pocket. We concede that indeed there were "public performances for profit. p. Thus.. 317)." (Buck. It will be noted that for the playing and singing the musical compositions involved. The defendants' performances are not eleemosynary. not only upon the air. It is enough to say that there is no need to construe the statute so narrowly. Same Jewell La Salle Realty Co. Appellant anchors its claim on Section 3(c) of the Copyright Law which provides: SEC. infringes the exclusive right of the owner of the copyright. et al. it has been explained that while it is possible in such establishments for the patrons to purchase their food and drinks and at the same time dance to the music of the orchestra. the Court ruled that "The Performance in a restaurant or hotel dining room." (Buck. without charge for admission to hear it. and it is public. Shanley Co. and the fact that the price of the whole is attributed to a particular item which those present are expected to order is not important. 32F.. represent. for the entertainment of patrons. In relation thereto. v.. thereby producing in the air sound waves which are heard as music . or reproduce the copyrighted work in any manner or by any method whatever for profit or otherwise. v. John Church Co. 19-25). of a copyrighted musical composition.
These units utilize specially printed posters sandwiched between plastic sheets and illuminated with back lights. however. 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. failure of which renders such creation public property. or within the (60) days if made elsewhere. INCORPORATED FACTS: Plaintiff-appellant Pearl and Dean (Phil. 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." (Santos v. 27) and the songs "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin" and "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" both registered on July 10.). The application for registration of the trademark was filed with the Bureau of Patents. SMI did not bother to reply. 28. Alampay. etc.on Appeal. 1947) entitled 'Rules of Practice in the Philippines Patent Office relating to the Registration of Copyright Claims' promulgated pursuant to Republic Act 165. Under the circumstances. The Supreme Court has ruled that "Paragraph 33 of Patent Office Administrative Order No. Jr. (Act 3134 amended by P. Metro Industrial Services. May 28. appear to have been known and sang by the witnesses as early as 1965 or three years before the hearing in 1968. but also for SM Cubao. to which Pearl and Dean agreed. long before registration (TSN. 3 (as amended. 1968. PREMISES CONSIDERED. SM Makati and SM Cubao. 1983. A careful study of the records reveals that the song "Dahil Sa Iyo" which was registered on April 20. (SMI) for the lease and installation of the light boxes in SM City North Edsa. Bidin and Cortes. No. INCORPORATED vs. 49. Gutierrez. Pearl and Dean negotiated with defendant-appellant Shoemart.. in a letter dated January 14. Two years later. 1968. 1966... provides among other things that an intellectual creation should be copyrighted thirty (30) days after its publication. Pearl and Dean was able to secure a Certificate of Copyright Registration dated January 20. Only the contract for SM Makati. 3-5.). ( Ibid. (the year of the hearing) or from 1943 (TSN. J. pp. Padilla. The testimonies of the witnesses at the hearing of this case on this subject were unrebutted by the appellant. May 28. SMI’s house counsel informed Pearland Dean that it was rescinding the contract for SM Makati due to non-performance of the terms thereof. p. 1986. Nevertheless. appellee cannot be said to have infringed upon the Copyright Law. 12 SCRA 324-325 . p. Instead. 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 (Brief for Defendant-Appellee. 1985. is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of advertising display units simply referred to as light boxes. dated September 18. SMI offered asan alternative. Indeed. the company formerly contracted by Pearland Dean to fabricate its display . 10) had become popular twenty five (25) years prior to 1968. Since SM City North Edsa was under construction at that time. 1956 (Brief for Appellant. PEARL & DEAN (PHIL. 24). Vergara wrote Abano inquiring about the other contract and reminding him that their agreement for installation of light boxes was not only for its SM Makati branch. and are therefore beyond the protection of the Copyright Law. 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. 1955 (Brief for Appellant. SHOEMART. the appealed decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. concur. p. if made in Manila. SO ORDERED. JJ. Consequently. took no part. Fernan (Chairman). McCullough Printing Company. was returned signed. 14-15) is correct.D. On October 4. 25) while the song "The Nearness Of You" registered on January 14. Trademarks and Technology Transfer on June 20. Inc. p.Sometime in 1985. pp. Inc. pp. it is clear that the musical compositions in question had long become public property. as amended). juke boxes. 71222 is hereby AFFIRMED. 10) became popular in radios. 29 and 30). 1981 over these illuminated display units. The advertising light boxes were marketed under the trademark ―Poster Ads‖.
This being so. Sometime in 1989.‖ During the trial. the word ―Poster Ads‖ is a generic term which cannot be appropriated as a trademark.2) Yes. (NEMI). ISSUES: 1) Whether or not the light box depicted in such engineering drawings is alsoprotected by such copyright if the engineering or technical drawings of an advertisingdisplay unit (light box) are granted copyright protection (copyright certificate of registration) by the National Library. this petition. Being a mere statutory grant. advertising copies. in the strict sense of the term. On appeal. Copyright. A trademark is any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods. The Court agrees with the appellate court.units. Obviously. It may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects and by the persons. Upon investigation. the rights are limited to what the statute confers. Prime Spots Marketing Services. Accordingly. It therefore filed a case for infringement of trademark and copyright. Hence. Pearl and Dean found out that aside from the two (2) reported SM branches. envelop es. In ruling that there was no copyright infringement. however. and the like. through its marketing arm. the president of P & D himself admitted that the light box was neither a literary not an artistic work but an ―engineering or marketing invention. SMI noted that the registration of the mark ―Poster Ads‖ was only for stationeries such as letterheads. 3) Whether or not the owner of a registered trademark legally prevent others fromusing such trademark if it is a mere abbreviation of a term descriptive of his goods. petitioner’s position was premised on its belief that its copyright over the engineering drawings extended ipso facto to the light boxes depicted or illustrated in said drawings.services or business.3) No. . It further discovered that defendant-appellant North Edsa Marketing Inc. 2) Whether or not light box should be registered separately and protected by apatent issued by the Bureau of Patents Trademarks and Technology Transfer (nowIntellectual Property Office) — in addition to the copyright of the engineeringdrawings. HELD: 1) No. SMI approved the proposal and ten (10) light boxes were subsequently fabricated by Metro Industrial for SMI. without notice of or reference to Pearl and Dean’s copyright. it can cover only the works falling within the statutory enumeration or description. is purely a statutory right. was set up primarily to sell advertising space in lighted display units located in SMI’s different branches. pictorial illustrations.‖ Trademark. copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot be interchanged with one another. After its contract with Metro Industrial was terminated. unfair competition and damages. SMI maintained that it independently developed its poster panels using commonly known techniques and available technology. RATIO DECIDENDI: On the first question: Petitioner P & D’s complaint was that SMI infringed on its copyright over the light boxes when SMI had the units manufactured by Metro and EYD Rainbow Advertising for its own account. the Court of Appeals held that the copyright was limited to the drawings alone and not to the light box itself. and on terms and conditions specified in the statute. received reports that exact copies of its light boxes were installed at SM City and in the fastfood section of SM Cubao. according to SMI. offered to construct light boxes for Shoemart’s chain of stores. tags and box wraps. petitioner’s copyright protection extended only to the technical drawings and not to the light box itself because the latter was not at all in the category of ―prints. light boxes similar to those it manufactures were also installed in two (2)other SM stores. P & D secured its copyright under the classification class ―O‖ work. The RTC of Makati City decided in favor of P & D. labels. Besides. In relation thereto. Pearl and Dean. the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling. a tradename means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise. SMI engaged the services of EYD Rainbow Advertising Corporation to make the light boxes.
One who has adopted and used a trademark on his goods does not prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark by others for products which are of a different description. since whatever right one ha sto the invention covered by the patent arises alone from the grant of patent. vs. the scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation. . petitioner could not legally prevent anyone from manufacturing or commercially using the contraption. it dealt in electrically operated backlit advertising units and the sale of advertising spaces thereon. On the third question: This issue concerns the use by respondents of the mark ―Poster Ads‖ which petitioner’s president said was a contraction of ―poster advertising.‖ P & D was able to secure a trademark certificate for it. involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable. In Creser Precision Systems. the failure of P & D to secure a trademark registration for specific use on the light boxes meant that there could not have been any trademark infringement since registration was an essential element thereof. Patentable inventions. vs. the Court of Appeals correctly cited Faberge Inc. invoking Section 20 of the old Trademark Law. Assuming arguendo that ―Poster Ads‖ could validly qualify as a trademark. Court of Appeals. the Court held that ―there can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has been issued. but one where the goods specified were ―stationeries such as letterheads. envelopes. On the contrary. Under the circumstances. And because it had no patent. It therefore acquired no patent rights which could have protected its invention. Intermediate Appellate Court where the Court. however. On the second question: Petitioner never secured a patent for the light boxes. refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new. ruled that ―the certificate of registration issued by the Director of Patents can confer (upon petitioner) the exclusive right to use its own symbol only to those goods specified in the certificate.‖ Petitioner admitted it did not commercially engage in or market these goods.Meanwhile. which. Inc. if in fact it really was. on the other hand. were not at all specified in the trademark certificate. calling cards and newsletters. subject to any conditions and limitations specified in the certificate x x x.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.