PROTECTED WORK
words or phrases from a law review article, novel
UNITED V MUNSINGWEAR
Whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess of jurisdiction .The petitioner is impressed with
merit. Since the name CHARLIE BROWN and its
pictorial representation were covered by a copyright
registration way back in 1950 the same are entitled to
protection under PD No. 49, otherwise known as the
Decree on Intellectual Property . Aside from its
copyright registration, petitioner is also the owner of
several trademark registrations and application for the
name and likeness of CHARLIE BROWN which is the duly
registered trademark and copyright of petitioner United
Feature Syndicate Inc. as early as 1957 and additionally
also as TV SPECIALS featuring the PEANUTS characters
CHARLIE BROWN”. It is undeniable from the records
that petitioner is the actual owner of said trademark
due to its prior registration with the Patent's Office.
LIMITATIONS
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM,
ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL
CASTILLO. (2010)
Whether or not an incorrect/inappropriate
referencing/citation automatically constitutes
plagiarism. The Court said, Plagiarism means the theft of
another person’s language, thoughts, or and the passing
off of the work of another as one’s own is thus an
indispensable element of plagiarism. In this case,
however, although Tams himself may have believed
that the footnoting in this case was not “an appropriate
form of referencing,” he and petitioners cannot deny
that the decision did attribute the source or sources of
such passages. Hence, Justice Del Castillo did not pass
off Tams’ work as his own.
A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC February 8, 2011
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM,
ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL
CASTILLO
Whether or not Justice Del Castillo committed
plagiarism. The Court held that a judge writing to
resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is
exempted from a charge of plagiarism even if ideas,
thoughts published in a legal periodical or language
from a party’s brief are used without giving attribution
because the judge is not writing a literary work and,
more importantly, the purpose of the writing is to
resolve a dispute. Hence, judges adjudicating cases are
not subject to a claim of legal plagiarism.
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
Whether Robles committed infringement in the
production of DEP. The court finds that respondent
Robles' act of lifting from the book of petitioners
substantial portions of discussions and examples, and
her failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an
infringement of petitioners' copyrights. In the case at
bar, the least that respondent Robles could have done
was to acknowledge petitioners Habana et. al. as the
source of the portions of DEP, furthermore, the final
product of an author's toil is her book. In conclusion, to
allow another to copy the book without appropriate
acknowledgment is injury enough.
Microsoft vs. Maxicorp
Whether or not the act of selling counterfeit goods
constitutes infringement and unfair competition. The
Court ruled that copyright infringement and unfair
competition are not limited to the act of selling
counterfeit goods. They cover a whole range of acts,
from copying, assembling, packaging to marketing,
including the mere offering for sale of the counterfeit
goods. In the case at bar, the clear and firm testimonies
of petitioners’ witnesses on such other acts stand
untarnished and that the Constitution and the Rules of
Court only require that the judge examine personally
and thoroughly the applicant for the warrant and his
witnesses to determine probable cause. The RTC
complied adequately with the requirement of the
Constitution and the Rules of Court, hence, the act
committed by the respondents constitute copyright and
unfair competition.
1
20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP. VS. COURT OF probable cause, which determination can be reached
APPEALS even in the absence of master tapes by the judge in the
exercise of sound discretion. The essence of intellectual
Whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion on the
piracy should be essayed in conceptual terms in order
part of the lower court when it lifted the search
to underscore its gravity by an appropriate
warrants it earlier issued against the private
understanding thereof. Infringement of a copyright is a
respondents. The court ruled, the essence of a copyright
trespass on a private domain owned and occupied by
infringement is the similarity or at least substantial
the owner of the copyright, and, therefore, protected
similarity of the purported pirated works to the
by law, and infringement of copyright, or piracy, which
copyrighted work and the applicant must present to
is a synonymous term in this connection, consists in the
the court the copyrighted films to compare them with
doing by any person, without the consent of the owner
the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly
of the copyright, of anything the sole right to do which
pirated to determine whether the latter is an
is conferred by statute on the owner of the copyright.
unauthorized reproduction of the former and this
linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films PEOPLE VS. RAMOS
must be established to satisfy the requirements of
Whether or not February 28, and 29 of a leap year
probable cause. In this case, the officers failed to
should be counted as one day or separate days in
present the master tape. Therefore, mere allegations as
computing the period of prescription. It was held in
to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve
1969 in Namarco vs. Tuazon 27 that February 28 and 29
as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.
of a leap year should be counted as separate days in
COLUMBIA PICTURES VS COURT OF APPEALS computing periods of prescription. Thus, this Court,
speaking thru former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion,
Whether or not the master tapes of the copyrighted
held that where the prescriptive period was supposed
films from which pirated films are supposed to have
to commence on December 21, 1955, the filing of the
been copied should be presented for the validity of the
action on December 21, 1965, was done after the ten-
search warrant. The Court, in 20th Century Fox Film
year period has lapsed — since 1960 and 1964 were
Corp. vs. Court of Appeal has already laid down the rule
both leap years and the case was thus filed two (2) days
that the presentation of the master tapes of the
too late. Since this case was filed on September 3, 1965,
copyrighted films from which the pirated films were
it was filed one day too late; considering that the 730th
allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of
day fell on September 2, 1965 — the year 1964 being a
search warrants against those who have in their
leap year.
possession the pirated films. In this case, as appellants
argue, that only the sale, lease, or distribution of pirated SERRANO LAKTAW VS PAGLINAWAN
video tapes is involved, the fact remains that there is
WON Mamerto is guilty of violating article 7 of the Law
need to establish probable cause that the tapes being
of January 10, 1879 on Intellectual Property. The Court
sold, leased or distributed are pirated tapes. Hence the
ruled that in order that said article may be violated, it is
issue reverts back to the question of whether there was
not necessary that a work should be an improper copy
unauthorized transfer, directly or indirectly, of a sound
of another work previously published and it is enough
recording or motion picture or other audio visual work
that another's work has been reproduced without the
that has been recorded.
consent of the owner, even though it be only to
COLUMBIA PICTURES V. CA (1996) annotate, add something to it, or improve any edition
thereof. In the case at bar, 20,452 out of 23,560 Spanish
W/N the respondent court erred in applying
words in Mamerto's dictionary were copied from
retroactively the case of 20th Century Fox Film Corp. v.
Pedro's and he also literally reproduced and copied for
CA. The trial courts finding that private respondents
the Spanish words in his dictionary, the equivalents,
committed acts in blatant transgression of Presidential
definitions and different meanings in Tagalog, given in
Decree No. 49 all the more bolsters its findings of
2
Pedro's dictionary, having reproduced, as to some
words, everything that appears in the latter's dictionary
for similar Spanish words, although as to some he made
some additions of his own. Hence, he violated the said
law.