COURSE OUTLINE - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW By: Atty. Marc Joseph A. Quirante Professor I. Introduction 1.

Basis of the Intellectual Property Law (R.A. 8293, as amended) 2. Importance of Adopting Laws protecting Intellectual Property Rights 3. Philippine commitment to the GATT-TRIPS agreement Tañada vs. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997 4. Did RA 8293 repeal existing laws on intellectual property? Mirpuri vs. CA, G.R. No. 114508, Nov. 19, 1999 Samson vs. Daway, G.R. No. 106654, July 21, 2004 7. Intellectual Property Rights – Trademark, Copyright and Patents Sec. 4.1, R.A. 8293 Republic Act No. 8293 – Intellectual Property Law I. Preliminary Matters
1.

State Policy Declaration – Sec. 2 Twentieth Century Music Corp. vs. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 Feist Publications, Inc. vs. Rural Tele. Servs. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 1991

2. Effect on International Conventions and on Principle of Reciprocity Sec. 3 & 231 Mirpuri vs. CA, G.R. No. 114508, Nov. 19, 1999 3. Coverage of Intellectual Property Rights - Sec. 4.1 Kho vs. CA, G.R. No. 115758, March 19, 2002 Pearl & Dean Inc. vs. Shoemart Inc., G.R. No. 148222, August 15, 2003 3. The Intellectual Property Office - Sec. 6.2 Pest Management Association of the Philippines. Vs. Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, G.R. No. 156041, February 21, 2007 III. The Law on Copyright Definitions – Sec. 171 – 171.10 2. Protection, when commenced – Sec. 172.2 3. Idea/Expression Dichotomy – Sec. 175 4. Works Protected a. Literary or Artistic Works - Sec. 172- 172.2 Columbia Pictures vs. CA, 261 SCRA 144 (1996) Ching vs. Salinas, G.R. No. 161295, June 29, 2005 b. Derivative Works – Sec. 173 Laktaw vs. Paglinawan, 44 Phil. 855 (1918) c. Published Edition of Work – Sec. 174 5. Works Not Protected – Sec. 175 a. Unprotected Subject Matter – Sec. 175 Joaquin, Jr. vs. Drilon, 302 SCRA 225 (1999) b. Works of Government – Sec. 176; 171.11 6. Copyright or Economic Rights; Ownership a. Copyright or Economic Rights – Sec. 177 Pearl & Dean Inc., supra Filipino Society of Composers vs. Tan, 148 SCRA 461 (1987) Maglalang Santos vs., McCullough Printing, 12 SCRA 321 (1964) b. Copyright Ownership – Sec. 178; 179; Art. 723 (NCC) 7. Transfer or Assignment of Copyright – Sec. 180- 183
1. 1

196 e. Waiver of Moral Rights – Sec. G. 175769-70. 195 d.Rights to Proceed in Subsequent Transfers a. Reproduction of Computer Program – Sec. vs. 215. 207 g. Scope of Performers’ Rights – Sec. Limitations On Copyright – Sec. Jan. 215. 216. How committed Microsoft Corp. Importation for Personal Purposes – Sec. Producers of Sound Recordings and Broadcasting Organizations a. Inc.3 d. Maxicorp Inc. 218. June 21. 211 j. 221. 147043.2 -Bayanihan Music Phils.2 Habana vs. No. 201 12. Limitations of Copyright a. 194 c. 210 h. 217. 202.R. supra c. 187.5 Audio-visual Works – Sec. Term of Protection for Performers. 209 i. Producers and Broadcasting Organizations – Sec. Term of Moral Rights – Sec. 203 c. 204. Communication to the Public on Sound Recordings – Sec. 205. 217. vs. BMG Records. 213. 216. 184 b. 213 Joint Authorship – Sec. International Registration of Works – Sec. 214 b. 00-16401 (U. vs. July 19. Presumption of Authorship – Sec. 185 A&M Records Inc. Limitations on Rights – Sec. 228 10. 2009 13. 1999 c. Criminal Penalties – Sec. 205. 2005 Microsoft Corp. Definitions – Sec. For Literary and Artistic Works and Derivative Works – Sec. 218.Rights of Performers. 19.8. Moral Rights of Performers – Sec.S. Work of Architecture – Sec.. Scope of Moral Rights – Sec. 192. Reprographic Reproduction by Libraries – Sec. Remedies for Infringement – Sec. Contract Terms – Sec. 226 11. Sale or Lease of Work – Sec. 227.3 Works of Applied Art – Sec. 221. Multi-Media System Inc. Reproduction of Published Work – Sec.2 e. No. Robles. Contribution to Collective Work – Sec. No. 189 g. 213. 131522. 200.. 166337.. 213. 219. 2005 f.2 e. 219. vs. 188 f. Hwang. Napster Inc. 8 b. Term of Protection – Sec.2 14.2 Anonymous or Pseudonymous Works – Sec.1 2 . 193 b. CA. 204. 191. vs.Moral Rights a. G. Robles G. Fair Use of Copyright Work – Sec. 220 15.2 e. No.R. Scope of Right of Broadcasting Organizations – Sec. 438 SCRA 224 b. Limitation on Performers’ Rights – Sec. 213. Additional Remuneration for Subsequent Communications or Broadcasts – Sec. March 7. 310 SCRA 522 (1999) Columbia Pictures Inc. 186 d. 190 9. 212 -ABS-CBN vs. Affidavit Evidence – Sec.R. No. Breach of Contract – Sec. Phil. 199. 206 f. 4 Photographic Works – Sec.Points of Attachment of Rights a.202. 213.187.Infringement a.6 Calculation of Terms – Sec. Court Decision) Habana vs.Term of Protection in General a.R. G. 198. Registration and Deposit with National Library and Supreme Court Library – Sec. Scope of Right on Sound Recordings – Sec.1 d. 208.

66 7. Substitution of Patentee a. 46 e. 222 c. 26 -Graham v. No.2 and 103. 25 3. 33 b. 224. Rights of Patentees and Infringement of Patents a. 61. Remedies of Person with Patent a. Right of Priority – Sec. 148222. 223 d. 278 SCRA 688 f. No. 106. G. Application by Persons Not Having Right to Patent. Inventions Created Pursuant to Commission – Sec. 2 b.1. G.6 Inventive Step – Sec. Rights Conferred by Patent – Sec. 32. 50.2 IV. Publication and Search – Sec.. 21 Inventor – Sec.R. John Deere Co. Court of Appeals. 61. 42-48 c. 146 SCRA 107 (1986) Creser Precision Systems Inc. Purpose of the Patent Law Manzano vs. Disclosure and Description of Invention – Sec. 44. CA. Application – Sec. 28 b. August 15. 104 Recording – Sec. Filing Date Requirements – Sec. Of Sound Recordings – Sec. 224. 68. 38 5. 31 4.2. 22 c. Effect of Cancellation – Sec. 71. For Broadcast – Sec. Shoemart Inc. 2. 286 SCRA 13 (1998) 8. CA. vs. 70 Creser Precision Systems vs. CA.3.R. 35 Unity of Invention – Sec.1. Feb. 25. Procedure For Grant of Patent a. Cancellation of Patents – Sec. 29 c.1 Manzano vs. “First to File” rule – Sec.2 Where Patent covers Product – Where Patent is Process Assign and transfer Form of Assignment – Sec. Utility Models and Industrial Designs 1. Examination Process Sec.Pearl & Dean Inc. 40 b. CA. 226 SCRA 338 3 . 67 b. Cancellation of Patents. 23 Prior Art – Sec. Right to Patent – Sec.Sec. CA. 1998 b. 32. 71. CA. Patentability a.S. vs.2 Novelty – Sec. Right to Patent a.1 Confidentiality Before Publication – Sec. 278 SCRA 688 (1997) 2. 45 d. 278 SCRA 688 (1997) Maguan vs. 107 b. Patent Application a. 55. 27 Manzano vs.2 6. Law on Patents. Doctrine of Equivalents Godines vs. 1. 24 Priority Date – Sec 20. Non-Patentable Inventions – Sec. Annual Fees – Sec. Novelty and Non-Prejudicial Disclosure – Sec. Patentable Inventions – Sec. 2003 b.2 Rights of Joint Owners – Sec. 118708. Rights Conferred by Patent Application After Publication – Sec. Grant of Patent – Sec. 1966) Industrial Applicability – Sec. 55. of Kansas City (383 U. 30 d. Remedies of True and Actual Inventor – Sec. 52. For Performers – Sec.

Voluntary Licensing a. Grounds for Compulsory Licensing – Sec. 82 k. October 23. 255 SCRA 152 (1996) Godines vs. 97 e.R. 85 Technology Transfer Arrangements – Sec. Rights of Licensee – Sec. 92 Smith Kline vs. 77 j. Amendment. Industrial Design – Sec. Licensee’s Exemption from Liability – Sec.2 b. 14 SCRA 1053 (1965) Smith Kline vs. vs. 272 SCRA 18 (1997) i. G. 92 10. 88 d. 84 Kenneth Roy Savage vs. 89 e. Terms and Conditions of Compulsory License – Sec.R. Limitation of Patent Rights – Sec.1 Patentable Inventions Sec. 3 Del Rosario vs. 113. 102 11.2 e.4. Integrated Circuit – Sec. 74 f. Court of Appeals. 113. 81 Patent Found Invalid for Infringement – Sec. 4. March 15. Limitation of Action for Damages – Sec. 95 Parke Davis & Co. 112. Compulsory License Based on Interdependence of Patents – Sec. 119. 1996. Use of Invention of Government – Sec. Requirement to Obtain License on Reasonable Commercial Terms – Sec. 110. Term of Industrial Design Registration – Sec. 115106. Defenses in Action for Infringement – Sec. 112. 109. 72 d.1 b. Angara. CA. 90 f.Registration of Utility Models a. 100 f. Conversion of Patent Application for Utility Model Registration – Sec. Mandatory Provisions – Sec.1.Industrial Designs a. Non-Registration – Sec. G.3 d. 2001 b. 331 SCRA 697 (2000) 9.4. Damages. Compulsory Licensing on Semi-Conductor Technology – Sec. 255 SCRA 152 (1996) b. Surrender of Compulsory License – Sec. 113. 112.2 c.5 V. vs. 118 f.Compulsory Licensing a. 111 12. 80 Del Rosario vs. Voluntary License Contract – Sec.2 Sec. Prior User – Sec. CA.Smith Kline Beckman Corp. CA. Prohibited Clauses – Sec. Rights Conferred to Owner of Layout Design Registration – Sec. 121267. Lay-out Design – Sec.1. Criminal Action for Repetition of Infringement – Sec. 276 SCRA 224 (1997) c. 110. 119. 87 c. 76 g. 101 g. Sec. 109. CA. 126627. 108. CA. Requirement of Notice – Sec. 96 d. Applicability of Provisions Relating to Patents – Sec. 108 Sec. Rights of Licensor – Sec. 91 g.R. Civil Action for Infringement – Sec. Cancellation. Doctors’ Pharmaceutical. The Law on Trademarks. No. Infringement Action by Foreign National – Sec. 226 SCRA 338 Tañada vs. Substantial Conditions for Protection – Sec. G. No. 14. 113.2 c. 72 e. No. Taypin. Aug. Exceptional Cases – Sec. Prohibition Against Filing of Parallel Applications – Sec.3. Service Marks and Trade Names 4 . 2003 c. 79 h.

Court of Appeals. CA. G.R.R. 2000 .R. Ng Sam. G. Definition of marks. No. 1926 Operators Inc. supra Phil. Feb. Nature of a Trademark Right Arce Sons and Co. Inc. 1965 Gabriel vs. No.R. L-26676. CA. Selects Biscuits. Historical Development Mirpuri vs. 1984 Converse Rubber vs. Paglinawan. 1982 5. vs. L-32747. 1966 Rueda Hermanos vs. L-24075.R. Fortune Tobacco Corp. supra 5 . Petra Hawpia & Co.R. vs. No. IAC. vs. Refining Co. G.R. L-27906. Universal Rubber.. CA. December 29.R. No. No. 120900. Jan. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. 31. 1969. G. 1987 6. v. 26. G. No. No.R. No. No. April 4. Corp. Basis of the Right to a Mark Sec. Aug.R. G. No.R. Prior Use of a Mark Sec. No. 8.Identical with Prior Marks Chuanchow Soy & Canning Co. 1970 Etepha vs. 121. 121.. 22. CA. vs. 251 SCRA 600 Ang vs.1. CA. 19. No. December 29. G. service marks & collective marks Sec. July 30. Jan. July 20. 2001 4. vs.2 Mirpuri vs. Director of Patents. 10738. Jan. Trade name Sec.R. Ng Sam. L-20635. April 30. 1999 3. 122 Puma Sportsshenfabriken vs. L-28554. 1995. 123.R. 1 SCRA 253 (1961) Converse Rubber vs. G. Director of Patents. Director of Patents. 108 Phil 833. 18. supra 7. L-29971. 112012. L-16297.R.3 Emerald Garments Mfg. 100098. 121. CA.3. 31. Trademark vs. G. vs. 29. vs.Confusingly Similar Marks American Wire Cable Co. 1987 Sterling Products International. Nov. 2000 Societe des Produits vs. vs. 158589. 75067. 138 9. Universal Rubber. 124. CA. 1982 Esso Standard Eastern Inc. 29. G. 251 SCRA 600 Converse Rubber vs. No. 100098. G. G.R.1.Ordinary Purchaser Fruit of the Loom vs. L-26676. 120900. CA. Director of Patents. G.Registrability of a Mark Sec.R. Perez. Purpose of the Trademark Law Philip Morris Inc. CA. General Milling. Oct. 2006 2. No. 3 10. No. vs. L-26557. 152 Sec. 836 Phil. 114508. G. Universal Rubber. Refining Co. No. Feb. Nov. G. v.R. G.1. Inc.R. No. 165 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha. Wellington. 1983 Emerald Garments Mfg. 123. 92 Phil 448 (1953) . No. L-17901. 121. 1916 . L-27906. July 20.2 Sec. Jan. 1982 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs. Feb. Who may apply for a mark? Sec. supra Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs. No. Court of Appeals. L-19906. 27 SCRA 1214 8. v. G. Dec. March 31. June 27. G. 1988 Marvex Commercial Co. July 30. 1995. Corp. 8. 14. G. 28. Functions of a Trademark Mirpuri vs. No.R.R. G. 1974 Unno vs.

18. Big Mak.R. 1960 Masso Hermanos vs. CA.R. 22.Actual Confusion McDonalds Corp. Nut Industry vs. Nut Industry vs. 1939 Operators Inc. 31.Well-known Marks Sec. CA. November 20. 112012. L-23055. No. G. 4. vs. No. No. Inc vs. L. Corp. C.R. December 29. G. 2004 American Wire Cable Co.C. Aug. vs. L-8072. G. Standard. No.Trademark Infringement is a relative concept 6 . vs. L-28744. 2004 Faberge Inc. 1955 . vs. 29. vs.R. G. No. 1975 Ang vs. G.R. No. vs. CA. Phonetic similarity Marvex Commercial Co vs. Dec. vs.R. 103543. L-17049. vs. No. No. 2001 East Pacific Merchandising Corp. Director of Patents. 1966 Emerald Garments Mfg. 100098. Oct. 199 . April 29. Holistic Test Bristol Myers vs. G. 29. Director of Patents. vs. Director of Patents.R. IAC. Dominancy Test Asia Brewery Inc. No. L-26557. 1 SCRA 253 91961) Lyceum of the Philippines vs. L-6235. No. Teodoro. 31. No. No. v. 2003 11. & SCRA 768 (1963) Del Monte Corp. No. July 30. L-3952. 1953 Phil. No.R. No. G. Director of Patents. Aug. CA. March 28. G. 103543. 18. Court of Appeals. 181 SCRA 410 (1990) Confusion of Goods vs.Test of Confusing similarity 1.Doctrine of Secondary Meaning Phil. 1956 Asia Brewery Inc. No. No. CA. 1926 Sapoline Co. Corp. Court of Appeals. 103543. July 31. 101897. G.R.Etepha vs. Confusion of Business Sterling Products International. Inc. L-20635. L. Big Mak.R. Director of Patents. G. 1975 American Wire Cable Co. Embisan. CA. vs. 1993 Phil. December 29. 143993. Inc. 1982 Acoje Mining Co. April 30. vs. 123. G. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft.R. 29. L-21915. Refining Co. Balmaceda. July 31. 1995. 1970 Acoje Mining Co. No.R. G. vs. vs. Director of Patents. L-26676. Court of Appeals. Dec.R.R. 18. G.. Ngo Guan. July 5. Dec. Daway.R.R. 74 Phil 50 (1942) Arce Sons and Co. L-16297. 1993 Del Monte Corp. Director of Patenst. 1969. 1965 2.R. L-44707. 17 SCRA 128 (1966) Mead Johnson & Co. G. vs. July 5. 1970 Emerald Garments Mfg. 143993. 1971 Luft Co.2 Rule 100 par. May 31. No. 1993 Ong Ai Gui vs. L-19906. 17. G. vs. 251 SCRA 600 . Director of Patents. G. G. 157216. vs. 251 SCRA 600 Recaro vs. 181 SCRA 410 (1990) 3. 27 SCRA 1214 McDonalds Corp. Aug. G. 45502.. Feb. March 5. v.C. April 4. Standard. Oct. May 3. 1982 Asia Brewery Inc. G. Trademark Regulations Rule 102 246 Corp.R. No. 1995. 100098. 1961 . 147. L-17901. March 31. July 5. 18.Generic & Descriptive Marks Societe des Produits vs. vs.R. 1992 Hickock Manufacturing vs. Nov. No. L-23055.R. G. v. L14377. No. Ng Sam. Dec.R. L-26557. Petra Haw Pia. G. NW Van Dorf Ltd. 1971 . April 29. CA. No. Selects Biscuits. No. 71189. Director of Patents. vs. 1966 Lim Hoa vs. G. L-28744.R. G.1 Sec. Feb.R. Director of Patents. Director of Patents.R. G.

rights. Damages and Injunction for Infringement – Sec. supra McDonald’s Corp. MACJOY Fastfood Corp. 159 26. 152 – 152. G. supra McDonalds Corp. 138 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs. 41 SCRA 50 (1971) La Chemise Lacoste vs. 114 SCRA 420 (1982) General Garments vs.. Universal Rubber. False Description or representation – Sec. 149. supra Philips Export vs. 281 SCRA 162 American Wire vs. CA. supra 27. 206 SCRA 457 (1992) 28. June 21. vs. Remedies for Infringement – Sec. 127. CA. 168 Proline Sports Center vs. 147.C. 123. 115115.5 20. No.4 Converse Rubber vs. vs.149. Non-use of Mark when excused – Sec. Certificate of Registration – Sec. 111580. 2001 Conrad and Company Inc. G. 215 SCRA 316 (1992)\ 16. License Contracts – Sec. vs. CA. 150. Actions. Fernandez. 170 Shangri-la Int’l Hotel Management vs. 31 SCRA 544 30.2. Limitation of rights – Sec. CA. vs. 150. supra Converse Rubber Corp. 147. CA.2 Mirpuri vs. 165 – 165. 166 29. Limitations to Actions for Infringement – Sec. IAC. L. 149. No. 155 24. False Designations of Origin.R. supra 22. regulations and remedies – Sec.Filing date Sec.4.Well-known marks Sec. supra 13. Rights of Foreign Corporation to sue in Trademark or Service Mark Enforcement action. 147.Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs. Rights conferred with registration – Sec. February 2.1 [e] and [f] Sec. Priority Right of a Foreign Applicant Sec. CA. 146.R. 2007 12. 156 – 158. 151. 114 SCRA 318 (1982) Emerald Garment Mfg. CA. Cancellation of Registration– Sec. 127. CA 19.Sec. Unfair competition.2 17. CA.. No.R. Big Mak.2 14. Trade names or business names – Sec.Sec. vs. vs. 246 SCRA 691[1995] 25. Duration of the registration Sec.4 23. supra Faberge Inc..2 18.2 Bata Industries Ltd vs. Goods bearing infringing marks of Trade Names . G. Universal Rubber. CA. 166115. Director of Patents. 160 Leviton Industries vs. 151. 124 14. Director of Patents. 145. 131 15. Salvador. 169 -end- 7 .2 21. Assignment and Transfer of Application and Registration – Sec 149.Formal Requirement for application of registration Sec. 148 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful