SAN BEDA LAW Laws on Intellectual Property Course Outline Professor Risei Castilo-Taleon I (ntellectual Property Rights 1. Declaration of State Policy - Sec. 2 IP Code Afitellectual Property Association of the Philippines vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204605, July 19, 2016 2. Specific Intellectual Property Rights - Sec. 4 IP Code 3. Technology Transfer Arrangements in General 4, Right of a Foreigner to Sue for Protection of IP Rights - Sec. 3 and 160 Ul. The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPhil) ~ Sections 6 to 9 and 9A of the IP Code (as amended by RA 10372), Sections 10 to 19, IPCode {I TRADEMARKS. 2 4. Definition of Marks, Collective Marks, Trade Names, Slogan ~ Sec. 121 2. Functions of Trademarks 3. Acquisition of Ownership of Mark ‘i a Sec 122 ©. Birkenstock GmbH vs. Phil Shoe Marketing GR #194307, Nov. 29, 2013 c. Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Kunnan Enterprises Ltd. and Sports Concept & Distributor, Inc., G.R. No. 169974, April 20, 2010 4. Acquisition of Ownership of Trade Name - Sec. 165 ae Ecole De Cuisine Manille (Cordon Bleu of the Philippines), Inc. vs. Renaus i Cointreau & Cie and Le Cordon Bleu Int'l, B.V., G.R. No. 185830, June 5, 2013) 8. Registrabiity of Marks ; a. Non-Registrable Marks Sec. 123.1 b. Secondary Neaning, Sec. 123.2 6, Fanciful, Arbitrary, Suggestive, Composite and Coined Marks 7. Ptior Use of Mark as a Requirement — Sec. 122, 152 8. Tests to Determine Confusing Similarity between Marksq =Vowses on an su lorhsch He PrevolalT Feces YH, Cae yG, EAALNONRS Aa = Feet dart Ses wth cata aS eden ahh DAY Lathsicalyy Strela a. Dominancy Test 2-145. | 3a Brewery, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, etal. G.R. No. 103543 2MlcDonald's Corporation vs. L.C. Big Mak Burgers, Inc. G.R. No. 143993 ~ ‘Socletes Des Produits Nestle, S.A. et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 112012 (A MeDONALD'S CORPORATION vs. MACJOY FASTFOOD CORPORATION (GR. No. 166115, February 2, 2007) 5, Sketchers USA vs. Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corporation, GR No. 164321, March 28, 2011 - Societes Des Produits Nestle. S.A. vs. Dy, G.R. No. 172276, August 8, 2010 fey he tact ip arsidticthy erthiaely of He Macks os coeeld by Me ¢rautls Adit ae Whol ond Gockegang deren eoeg, corte 5 enilorityy b. Holistic Test +-€imerald Garment Manufacturing Corp. vs. CA, G.R. No. 100098 as Bristol Myers *Co. vs. Dir. Of Patents & United American Pharmaceuticals, Inc., G.R. No. L-21587, May 19, 1966 > VICTORIO DIAZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND LEVI STRAUSS PHILS.M, INC (G.R. NO. 180677, February 18, 2013) 4. Philip Morris, Inc. vs. Fortune Tobacco Corporation, G.R. No. 158589, June 27, 2008 5° Del Monte Corporation and Philippine Packing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, GR. No. L-78325, January 25, 1990 . 4 8. Well-Known Marks a. Sec. 123 (e) (A) b. Criteria IN-N-OUT BURGER, INC. vs. SEHWANI, INCORPORATED ANDIOR BENITA'S FRITES, ING. (G.R. No. 179127, December 24, 2008) «&. Fredco Manufacturing Corporation vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College, GR No. 185917. June 1, 2011 10. Trademark Registration Process and Requirements — Secs. 124-146, 149 a. Filing date b. Priority Rightc. Opposition d. Certificate of Registration 44. Rights Conferred by Registration — Sec: 147 a-7Talwan Kolin Corp. v. Kalin Electronics,Co., G.R. No, 208843, 25 March 2016 b. saan Cornoration and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco, Inc. vs. E.& J. Gallo Winery and the Andresons Group, Inc., G.R. No. 184342, July 14, 2004 42. Use by Third Parties of Names, etc. Similar to Registered Mark - Sec, 148, 413. License Contracts ~ Sec. 150 44, Cancellation of Registration - Section 151 - 154 15. Infringement and Remedies a. Trademark Infrifigement 4.'Se0. 188 . + 2. Confusion of goods vs. confusion of business 3. Limitations to Actions for Infringement — Sec. 159 ae SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT, LTD., SHANGRILA PROPERTIES, INC., MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL & RESORT, INC., AND KUOK PHILIPPINES PROPERTIES, INC. vs. DEVELOPERS -GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC., (G.R. No. 159938, March 31, 2006) 5. PROSOURCE INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs. HORPHAG RESEARCH MANAGEMENT SA (sociG.R. No. 180073, November 25, 2009) 6 COFFEE PARTNERS, INC. vs. SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE & ROASTERY, INC., (G.R. No. 169504, March 3, 2010) Ong vs. People of the Philippines, GR No. 169440, November 23, 2011 8. Republic Gas Corporation (REGASCO), et. al. vs. Petron Corporation, et. al., G.R. No. 194062, June 17, 2013 b. Damages 1. Sec. 156-158, 179 2. Civil vs. Criminal Infringement 3, Action for False or Fraudulent Declaration ~ Sec. 162 c. Jurisdiction " 1. Sec. 1632. AM No. 2-1-11, Feb. 9, 2002 2. AM No. 03-03-03, July 1, 2003 3. Sec. 10,2 d, Requirement of Notice @. Prohibition of Entry of Goods Bearing Infringing Marks; Role of Bureau of Customs - Sec. 166 18: Unfair Competition a. Sec. 168 b. Infringement vs. Unfair Competition ay Shell Petroleum, et al. vs. Romars Int'l. GR 189669, Feb. 16, 2015 illaware Praducts Co/p. vs. Jesicrhris Mfg. Corp. GR 195549, Sep. 3, 2014 we MANUEL C. ESPIRITU, JR., AUDIE'LLONA, FREIDA F. ESPIRITU, CARLO F. ESPIRITU, RAFAEL F. ESPIRITU, ROLANDO M. MIRABUNA, HERMILYN A. MIRABUNA, KIM ROLAND A. MIRABUNA, KAYE ANN A. MIRABUNA, KEN RYAN A. MIRABUNA, JUANITO P. DE CASTRO, GERONIMA A. ALMONITE and MANUEL C. DEE, who are the officers and directors of BICOL GAS REFILLING PLANT CORPORATION, vs. PETRON CORPORATION and CARMEN J. DOLOIRAS, doing business under the name "KRISTINA PATRICIA ENTERPRISES (G.R. No. 170891, November 24, 2009 LEVI STRAUSS (PHILS.), INC. vs. TONY LIM (G.R. No. 163311, December 4, 2008) Satin Cola Bottlers Philippines, inc: (CCBPI), Naga Plant vs: Quintin Gomez, et, I., G.R. No. 154491, November14, 2008 17. Trade Names or Business Names — Sec, 165 18. Collective Marks — Sec. 167 19. False Designations of Origins, False Description or Representation - Sec, 169 ees UYCO, WINMSTON UYCHIYONG and CHERRY C. UYCO-ONG vs. VICENTE LO (G.R. NO. 202423, January 28, 2013) 20. Penalti Sec. 170 G.R. No. 188526. November 11, 2013, Century Chinese Medicine Co., et al. Vs. People of the Philippines and Ling Na Lau NV. PATENTS1.. Patentable Inventions - Sec. 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 2. Non-Patentable Inventions - Sec. 22 3. Ownership of a Patent a. Right to a Patent - Sec. 28 b. First-to-File Rule — Sec. 29 c. Inventions Created Pursuant to a Commission d. - Sec. 30 d, Right of Priority — Sec. 31 |. Patent Registration Process and Requirements - Secs. 32 to 80 Cancellation of a Patent — Secs. 61 to 66. Remedy of the True and Actual Inventor — Sec. 29, 67, 68, 70 . Rights Conferred by a Patent — Sec. 71 & 55 . Limitations of Patent Rights - Sec.71 & 72 a. Prior User — Sec. 73 b. Use by the Government - Sec. 74 9. Patent Infringement — Sec. 76 to 84 ernoasn . Civil Action for Infringement — Sec. 76 : Infringement Action by a Foreign National — Sec. 77 Limitation of Action - Sec. 79 . Notice Requirement ~ Sec. 80 e®aeocD Court which has Jurisdiction AM No. 02-1-11, dated Feb, 19, 2002 ‘Samson vs. Cabanos, June 28, 2005 GR 161693 f. Criminal action for Patent Infringement - Sec. 84 g. Tests in Patent Infringement i. Literal: Infringement — Sec. 75.1 ii, Doctrine of Equivalents ~ Sec. 75.2 h. Defenses in Action for Infringement ~ Sec. 81 i. Contributory Patent Infringement - Sec. 75.1 10. Technology Transfer Arrangements - Secs. 85 to 102 a. Voluntary License Contract ~ Sec. 85, 90, 91 1. Prohibited Clauses — Sec. 87 2. Mandatory Provisions - Sec. 88b. Compulsory Licensing 1. Grounds - Sec. 93, 96, 97 2. Requirement to Obtain a License - Sec. 95 ©. Period to File a Petition - Sec. 94 41. Assignment and Transmission of Rights ~ Sec, 103-107 12. Utility Models - Secs. 108 - 111 43. Industrial Design - Secs, 112-118 14. CASES ee A IG.R. No. 148222. August 15, 2003.] PEARL & DEAN (PHIL.), INCORPORATED vs. SHOEMART, INCORPORATED, and NORTH EDSA MARKETING, INCORPORATED, (PATENTS/COPYRIGHT) {G.R. No. L-45101. November 28, 1986.] ROSARIO C. MAGUAN (formerly ROSARIO C. TAN), petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and SUSANA LUCHAN, (novelty as requisite for patentability) G.R. No. L-32160. January 30, 1982] DOMICIANO A. AGUAS, petitioner, vs. CONRADO G. DE LEON and COURT OF APPEALS, (patentability) “[G.R. No. 126627. August 14, 2003.] SMITH KLINE BECKMAN CORPORATION, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and TRYCO PHARMA CORPORATION, (PATENTS)(doctrine of equivalents ;*” must satisfy “function-means-and-result test”) - [G.R. No. 97343. September 13, 1993.] PASCUAL GODINES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION and SV-AGRO ENTERPRISES, INC., (doctrine of equivalents) - [G.R.No. 121267. October 23, 2001.] SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES, LTD., vs. COURT OF APPEALS and DANLEX RESEARCH.LABORATORIES, INC., (PATENTS; Compulsory Licensing) . [G.R. No. 118708, February 2, 1998.] CRESER PRECISION SYSTEMS, INC., vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND FLORO INTERNATIONAL CORP., (PATENTS-who may sue for infringement) 5 8. R. No. 113388. September 5, 1997.] ANGELITA MANZANO, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and MELECIA MADOLARIA, as Assignor to NEWUNITED FOUNDRY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION (PATENTABILITY) 9. G.R. No. 121887. July 24, 1997.) SMITH KLINE & FRENCH. LABORATORIES, LTD., vs. COURT OF APPEALS, BUREAU OF PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER and DOCTORS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., (COMPULSORY LICENSING) 10. [G.R. No. 115106. March 15, 1996.] ROBERTO L. DEL ROSARIO, , vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND JANITO CORPORATION, (UTILITY. MODEL) 11. [G.R. No. L-20354. July 28, 1989.] GERARDO SAMSON, JR., petitioner, vs. FELIPE TARROZA and DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, (utility model) 12. Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc., G.R. No. 167715, November 17, 2010 (PATENTS; rights arising therefrom) V. COPYRIGHT 1. Definitions — Sec. 171 (Note Secs. 171.3, 171.9, 171.12 and 171.13 as amended and introduced by RA. 10372) 2. Definition of copyright 2.1,1t is the element of a person's ownership of his intellectual creation that permits him (author, composer or artist) to exclusively print, publish and vend the product of his creation. a. Common law copyright - That which secures to the owner exclusivity until its public dissemination. b. Statutory copyright — That which secures protection and exclusivity in the ‘owner by force of law even when the work has been made accessible to the public. 3. Territorial Application Of Copyright Laws (Ip Code) 3 Our copyright laws have no extra-territorial operation and the rights granted under our laws can only be infringed by acts done within our territorial jurisdiction, 4. Copyright Is Distinct From Trademark And Patents A. 1. Pearl & Dean Phils. Inc. vs. Shoemart, Inc. 409 SCRA 23 (2003)2. Kho vs. Court of Appeals 379 SCRA 410 (2002) 3. Ching vs. Salinas 462 SCRA 241 (2005) B. Denicola Test — This test inquires into which aspects of the work are dictated by the functional constraints of the article and which’ aspects reflect unconstrained perspective of the artist (Prof. Robert Denicola) C. Can an article of Commerce serve as a trademark and at the same time enjoy patent and copyright protection? . Copyright Over Literary And Works Is Vested From The Moment Of Creation 1. Sec. 172.1 First paragraph 2. Sec. 172.2 3. Unilever Phils., Inc. vs. CA498 SCRA 334 . Works Protected By Copyright A. 1. Original works - Sec. 172 2. Derivative works ~ Sec. 173 B. Requirements of originality ~ An original work is that which requires originality in skill oF labor in execution such that the works became individual either in matter, forms, arrangement or treatment (not necessarily original thought. idea or research) 1. Sambar vs. Levi Strauss 378 SCRA 364 Works Not Protected By Copyright 1. Sec, 175 2. Sec. 176 |. Rights Conferred By Copyright 1. Economic Right - See. 177 2. Moral Rights - Sec. 193 - 199 3. its of Performers, Producers of Sounds Recording and Broadcasting Organizations — Secs. 201, 202, 203*, 204*, 205, 206, 207, 208", 209, 210, 211 and 212"4. Copyright in Work of Architecture — Sec. 186 9. Transfer or Assignment of Copyright - Secs. 180°, 181* and 182 10. Designation of Societies - Sec, 183* 11, Limitations Of Copyright 1. Sec. 184 (184.1"), 187, 2. Fairuse of Copyright Work - Sec. 185 (185.1*) a. Reproduction of Computer Program — Sec. 189 b. Reprographic Reproduction by Libraries - Sec. 188 (188. D 3. Importation for Personal Purposes ~ Sec. 190* (deleting 190.1 and 190.2 and renumbering and rewording 190.3) 12. Ownership Of Copyright 4. Sec. 178 2. Anonymous & Pseudonymous Wotks - Sec. 179... 13, Deposit and Notice - Sec. 191* and 192 14. Term of Moral Rights - Sec, 198° 15. Right to Proceeds in Subsequent Transfers ~ Secs. 200 - 201 16. Duration Of Copyright 1. Sec. 213 17. Infringement ; 1. Infringement vs. Plagiarism Infringement or piracy is any violation of the cwner’s exclusive rights conferred by law while plagiarism is confined to the incorporation in one's ‘own work that of another without the proper acknowledgment thereof. 2. Animus furandi or intention to pirate is not an element of copyright infringement 3. An acknowledgement of the sources of the work infringed is not a'defense to an infringement action. 4. Secs. 216*, 217*, 218*, 220A" 5. Presumption of Authorship — Sec. 219 18. Prescription Of Action - Sec. 226*19. Cases . SANRIO CO., LIMITED vs. EDGAR LIM doing business SD ORIGNAMURA TRADING, [G.R. NO. 168662, February 19, 2008] . NBI-MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ET AL. vs. JUDY HWANG ET AL., [G.R. NO. 147043, June 21, 2005) . MANLY SPORTWEAR MANUFACTURING, INC. vs DADODETTE ENTERPRISES AND/OR HERMES SPORTS CENTER [G.R. NO. 165306, September 20, 2005] . PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N: FERNANDO, vs. FELICIDAD C. ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC. [G.R. No. 131522. July 19, 1999.) FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, JR., and BJ PRODUCTIONS, INC., petitioners, vs. HONORABLE FRANKLIN DRILON, GABRIEL ZOSA, WILLIAM ESPOSO, FELIPE MEDINA, JR., and CASEY FRANCISCO, [G.R. No. 108946. January 28, 1999.} FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, INC., vs. BENJAMIN TAN [G.R. No. L-36402. March 16, 1987.] - . ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc., G.R. Nos. 175769-70, January 19, 2009 B Provisions marked with asterisk" are amended / inserted by RA 10372