Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NEGRE
UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
Introduction
IP and the Constitution
IP in the International Regime
IP Rights under the IP Code
Patents, Utility Models and Industrial Designs
Trademarks, Tradenames and Unfair Competition
Copyrights and Moral Rights
Special Rules and Jurisdiction on IPR Cases
A.8.
KLM Printers, Inc. operated a small outlet located at the ground floor
of a university building in Quezon City. It possessed soft copies of
certain textbooks on file, and would print "book-alikes" of these
textbooks (or in other words, reproduced the entire textbooks) upon
order and for a fee. It would even display samples of such "book-
alikes" in its stall for sale to the public.
Upon learning of KLM Printers, Inc.'s activities, the authors of the
textbooks filed a suit against it for copyright infringement. In its
defense, KLM Printers, Inc. invoked the doctrine of fair use,
contending that the "book-alikes" are being used for educational
purposes by those who avail of them.
A.9.
X Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has been manufacturing the antibiotic
ointment Marvelopis, which is covered by a patent expiring in the
year 2020. In January 2019, the company filed an application for a
new patent for Disilopis, which, although constituting the same
substance as Marvelopis, is no longer treated as an antibiotic but is
targeted and marketed for a new use, i.e., skin whitening.
(a) What are the three (3) requisites of patentability under the
Intellectual Property Code? (3%)
inventions;
literary and artistic works;
designs; and
symbols, names and images used in commerce.
Intellectual Property and the Constitution
It is property
Articles 520-522 (Trademarks) and 721-724
(Copyrights/Patents), Civil Code
Creations of the human mind or intellect
Intangible asset
Vs. Object/Embodiment
Intellectual property rights
Trademarks Patents
Trade name Utility Model
Industrial Design
Geographic Indications
Layout design
Copyright
Trade Secret
IP Rights Protected Under the IP Code
Trade Secret – ?
IP Rights Under the IP Code
SC:
1. Copyright Infringement
1. Drawings v. Products
2. Patents
2. Trademark Infringement
1. Stationeries v. Products
2. POSTER ADS
3. Unfair Competition
1. POSTER ADS
Distinctions
3 Basic Principles
◼ National Treatment
◼ Automatic Protection
◼ Independence of Protection
Basicprinciples
◼ National Treatment
◼ Right of Priority (date of filing)
◼ Common Rules [Minimum Standards]
International Regime of IP Rights
National Treatment
Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
3 Main Sets of Provisions
Applicant
Office of Origin
Background:
Territoriality
Registration
Exc. Copyright
First-to-File
Exc. Copyright
Nothing Absolute: Exceptions and Limitations
The Marrakesh Treaty
The MARRAKESH VIP TREATY:
Copyright infringement:
There is a lack of legal fair use provisions for:
• Local production and distribution of books in accessible
formats;
• Cross-border distribution of books in accessible formats
to institutions and individuals.
The Treaty’s Objectives
A beneficiary
person is a person
who:
(a) is blind;
“Beneficiary”
A copy of a work in an
alternative manner or
form which gives a
beneficiary person
access to the work, as
feasibly and comfortably
as a person without
visual impairment or
other print disability.
A “Book Famine” Crisis
Accessible formats:
large print for people with low vision,
vis-à-vis
THE INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY CODE
IP Code of the PHILIPPINES
…
“184.1 (l) the reproduction or distribution of published
articles or materials in a specialized format exclusively
for the use of the blind, visually- and reading-impaired
persons: Provided, That such copies and distribution
shall be made on a nonprofit basis and shall indicate
the copyright owner and the date of the original
publication (RA 10372 amending RA 8292 [2013])
PH accedes to the Marrakesh Treaty
PHL Amb. Evan Garcia hands over the Instrument of Accession of the Philippines to the Marrakesh Treaty to WIPO Director Francis Gurry in Geneva on
18 December 2018
BENGZON
END OF SESSION 1
NEGRE
UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
THANK YOU !☺
FERDINAND M. NEGRE
BENGZON
NEGRE
UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
3
4
5
Computer-related Inventions
The first ever kidney delivered by drone was a
flying success (University of Maryland)
Computer-related Inventions
Human Organ Monitoring and Quality Assurance
Apparatus for Long-Distance Travel
Computer-related
Inventions
Ride-sharing App
Computer-related
Inventions
Territory
Scope
- Claims
- Exceptions and Limitations
Time
- Expired
- Lapsed
What is a patent?
INVENTION = PATENT?
INVENTION ≠ PATENT
INVENTION
PROBLEM-SOLUTION APPROACH
INVENTION
1. Discoveries
2. Scientific theories
3. Mathematical methods
4. Schemes, rules and methods of
-performing mental acts
-playing games
-doing business
and programs for computers
5. Methods for treatment of the human or
animal body by surgery or therapy &
diagnostic methods practised on the
human & animal body
NON-PATENTABLE INVENTIONS
NEW (NOVEL)
[Requirement #1]
TEST OF NOVELTY
Prior Art :
1. Everything which is made available to the
public anywhere in the world, before the
filing date or the priority date of the
application. It may refer to:
- patents & registered utility models and
industrial designs
- printed publications (printed and
published)
- prior knowledge
- prior use and sale
PRIOR ART - Everything made available to the public
by means of:
PRIOR
ART
NOVELTY
Prior Art :
2. The whole contents of an application for a
patent, utility model or industrial design
registration,
- published in accordance with the IP Code
- filed or effective in the Philippines
- with filing or priority date earlier than the
application
NOVELTY ANALYSIS
BUT…
GRACE PERIOD
Non-Prejudicial Disclosure
If you have already disclosed or published your
inventions in a journal, demonstrate, sell or discuss
your invention in public, you can still file a patent
application within 12 months (1 year) from the date
of disclosure or publication. (Sec. 25)
INVENTIVE STEP (Requirement #2)
An invention involves
an inventive step, if
having regard to prior
art.
Upper Plate
Shank
Hinge
Plate
Graham v. John Deere
Claimed Invention ‘798
(Modified ‘811 Patent)
Upper Plate
Shank
Hinge
Plate
Graham v. John Deere
Is it obvious to move the hinge plate from position A
under the shank to position 1 above the shank?
C
3
B 1
A
The Graham Test
Secondary considerations
• Commercial success
• Long felt need
• Failure of others
PERSON SKILLED IN THE ART
✓INVENTIVE
EXAMPLE: GOLF BALL CASE
1. Problem: Abrasion Resistance
2. Solution to the Problem: Applying rigid polyurethane
material to the surface of the golf ball
3. Inventive Step?
- No. Rigid polyurethane is known to be highly abrasion
resistant
- Applying the substance to solve the abrasion problems in
golf balls would be an obvious matter to a person skilled in the
art
4. Might be Inventive, IF
- There is an improved and unexpected result by
significantly increasing the flight of the ball (strong evidence of
the presence of invention)
EXAMPLE 2
• Abstract
• Description
• Claims
75.2. …
PROPER CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION
Extent of protection afforded by a patent is determined
by its claims.
CLAIMS
LIMITATIONS of Patent Rights
Section 72. Limitations of Patent Rights. - The owner of a
patent has no right to prevent third parties from
performing, without his authorization, the acts referred to
in Section 71 hereof:
72.1. Using a patented product which has been put on the
market in the Philippines by the owner of the product, or
with his express consent, …;
72.2. Where the act is done privately and on a non-
commercial scale or for a non-commercial purpose:
72.3. Where the act consists of making or using
exclusively for the purpose of experiments that relate to
the subject matter of the patented invention;
More LIMITATIONS…
Patent Infringement
1.Literally, or
2.By equivalents
PUBLIC DOMAIN
CLAIMS
Patent Infringement
• Types:
• Literal infringement
• Literal infringement exists if an accused device
falls directly within the scope of properly
interpreted claims.
Example:
Patent Claim Accused Product
A biodegradable A biodegradable
composition comprising: composition comprising:
1. A resin; and 1. A mixture of resin and
an elastomeric material;
2. A soy protein. 2. A soy protein
Patent Infringement
• Infringement by Equivalents
• Functions-Means-Results test:
If two devices do the same work in substantially
the same way and accomplish substantially the
same result, they are the same, even though they
differ in name, form or shape. (Smith Kline
Beckman vs. CA, G.R. No. 126627 [2003])
1.New (Novelty)
2.Inventive Step
3.Industrial Applicability
Novelty Novelty
REGISTRATION Inventive step
Novelty
REQUIREMENT Industrial Industrial
Applicability Applicability
SUBSTANTIVE
EXAMINATION
Required Not Required Not Required
TERM OF
20 7 5+5+5
PROTECTION
E.I. DUPONT V. IPO, G.R. NO. 174379 [31 August 2016]
SC:
“A patent is granted to provide rights and
protection to the inventor after an invention is
disclosed to the public. It also seeks to restrain and
prevent unauthorized persons from unjustly profiting
from a protected invention. However, ideas not
covered by a patent are free for the public to use and
exploit. Thus, there are procedural rules on the
application and grant of patents established to protect
against any infringement. To balance the public
interests involved, failure to comply with strict
procedural rules will result in the failure to obtain a
patent.”
E.I. DUPONT V. IPO, G.R. NO. 174379
SC:
Also…
Facts:
Lexmark International, Inc. designs, manufactures,
and sells toner cartridges to consumers in the United
States and abroad. It owns a number of patents that
cover components of those cartridges and the manner
in which they are used.
Impressions v. Lexmark, 581 U.S. 1523 (2017)
Issues:
x x x
BENGZON
END OF SESSION II
NEGRE
UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
THANK YOU !☺
FERDINAND M. NEGRE
BENGZON
NEGRE
UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
Visible Sign
“visible”
Words
Letters
Numerals
Figures/Pictures
Shapes
Colors
Logos
Three dimensional
objects
Combinations
Colors or shapes
Three dimensional objects
Not “visible”
Sounds
Smell
Touch…
…called “non-traditional
marks”
Trademarks
Visible Sign
Distinctive
Distinctiveness
DISTINCTIVE!
DISTINCTIVE!
Distinctiveness
DISTINCTIVE!
Distinctiveness of a mark: A spectrum
Great White Shark v. Caralde, Jr., G.R. No.
192294, [November 21, 2012]
Great White Shark v. Caralde, Jr., G.R. No.
192294, [November 21, 2012]
Geographical Indications
Certification marks
Well known marks
Types of Trademarks
Service marks
Types of Trademarks
Collective marks
Article 6bis
(1) The countries of the Union undertake, ex officio
if their legislation so permits, or at the request of an
interested party, to refuse or to cancel the registration,
and to prohibit the use, of a trademark which
constitutes a reproduction, an imitation, or a
translation, liable to create confusion, of a mark
considered by the competent authority of the country
of registration or use to be well known in that country
as being already the mark of a person entitled to the
benefits of this Convention and used for identical or
similar goods...
Sehwani v In-N-Out (Oct.15, 2007)
Sehwani v In-N-Out (Oct.15, 2007)
Geographical Indications
Certification marks
Well known marks
Non-registrable marks
First-to-File Rule!
Non-registrable marks
Visible Sign
ABS-CBN asserts that it has a vested right over the mark because
it has applied [thought its predecessor company] in 1994 for the
registration of the same under the old Trademark Law. Since
then, it actually used the mark in commerce. It claims that under
the old Trademark law, actual use in commerce is a pre-requisite
to the acquisition of ownership over a trademark and that its
actual use of the mark enabled it to automatically acquire
trademark rights, which should have extended under the IPC in
1998. However, ABS-CBN itself admitted that its 1994 application
was already "deemed abandoned."
SC:
“While it is quite noticeable that the petitioner failed to
discuss the implications of this abandonment, it
remains a fact that once a trademark is considered
abandoned, the protection accorded by the IPC, or in
this case the old Trademark Law, is also withdrawn.
The petitioner, in allowing this abandonment, cannot
now come before the Court to cry foul if another entity
has, in the time that it has abandoned its trademark
and in full cognizance of the IPC and the IPO rules,
registered its own.”|
BENGZON NEGRE UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
Ownership of a mark
Elements:
1. Ownership of a trademark through registration
Element 1:
1. Ownership of a trademark
Element 2:
2. That the trademark is reproduced,
counterfeited, copied, or colourably imitated by
the infringer;
Trademark Infringement
Element 2:
2. That the trademark is reproduced,
counterfeited, copied, or colourably imitated by
another without consent;
Exact reproduction/counterfeiting/copying of the
mark
Trademark Infringement
Element 2:
2. That the trademark is reproduced, counterfeited,
Elements 3 and 4:
3. Unauthorized Use in connection with the sale,
Elements 3 and 4:
3. Unauthorized use in connection with the sale,
Elements 5:
4. Likelihood of confusion
Element 5:
Likelihood of confusion
In the foregoing enumeration, it is the
element of "likelihood of confusion" that is the
gravamen of trademark infringement. But
"likelihood of confusion" is a relative concept. The
particular, and sometimes peculiar, circumstances of each
case are determinative of its existence. Thus,
in trademark infringement cases, precedents must be
evaluated in the light of each particular case. (Prosource
International, Inc. v. Horphag Research Management SA,
G.R. No. 180073, [November 25, 2009], 620 PHIL 539-553)
Trademark Infringement
Element 5:
4. Likelihood of confusion
Types of confusion:
• As to the goods themselves (“Confusion of
goods”)
• As to the source or origin of such goods
(“Confusion of business”)
Trademark Infringement
Element 5:
4. Likelihood of confusion
Types of confusion:
• As to the goods themselves (“Confusion of
goods”)
◼Same or competing goods
• As to the source or origin of such goods
(“Confusion of business”)
Trademark Infringement
Element 5:
4. Likelihood of confusion
Types of confusion:
• As to the goods themselves (“Confusion of goods”)
• As to the source or origin of such goods (“Confusion
of business”)
◼Wherein the goods of the parties are different but
the defendant’s product can reasonably be
assumed to originate from the plaintiff thereby
deceiving the public into believing that there is
some connection between the plaintiff and
defendant, which in fact, does not exist ( Mighty
Corporation vs. EJ Gallo, 434 SCRA 473, [2004]])
Trademark Infringement
Element 5:
Likelihood of confusion
Whose perspective?
Tests of confusion:
• Dominancy Test
• Holistic Test
Trademark Infringement
Element 5:
Likelihood of confusion
Tests of confusion:
• Dominancy Test
◼Prevalent features of a product
Trademark Infringement
Element 5:
Likelihood of confusion
Tests of confusion:
• Dominancy Test
◼Prevalent features of a product
Trademark Infringement
Element 5:
Likelihood of confusion
Tests of confusion:
• Holistic Test
◼Marks compared in their entirety
Emerald v. CA, G.R. 100098 (1995)
Element 5:
Likelihood of confusion
Other factors:
• Idem Sonans Rule – aural effects of the words
and letters contained in the marks are also
considered in determining the issue of
confusing similarity
• Examples:
◼ “Pycogenol” vs. “PCO-GENOL”
(Prosource vs. Horphag)
◼ “Dermaline” vs. “Dermalin” (Dermaline
Inc. vs. Myra Pharmaceuticals)
◼ “Nanny” vs. “Nan” (Nestle S.A. vs. Dy Jr.)
Recap: Trademark Infringement
Elements:
1. Ownership of a trademark, i.e. registration
Elements:
1. Ownership of a tradename; registration with
IPO is not required.
2. That the tradename is reproduced,
counterfeited, copied, or colorably imitated by
the infringer;
3. Use in connection with the sale, offering for sale,
or advertising of any goods, business or services,
or those that are related thereto
4. No consent by the tradename owner
5. Likelihood of Confusion
Unfair Competition
Is
“hoarding” of softdrink or beer bottles to stifle
supply a form of unfair competition under the IP
Code?
Unfair Competition
Elements:
1. Confusing similarity in the general appearance
of the goods;
2. Intent to deceive the public and defraud a
competitor
Registration a Yes No No
requirement?
Acts prohibited Unauthorized Unauthorized Passing off of
use/reproduction/ use/reproduction/ one’s goods giving
counterfeiting/co counterfeiting/co them the general
pying of a pying of a appearance of the
trademark or tradename goods of another
colorable
imitation thereof
Is fraud an No No Yes
element?
False Designation of Origin
Facts:
▪ Philites filed a trademark application covering its
fluorescent bulb, incandescent light, starter, and
ballast.
Facts:
▪ Philips:
o Filed an opposition
o Violates several provisions of the IP Code.
o Identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a
translation of a well-known mark
Issues:
1. Whether Respondent’s mark is well-known?
2. Whether the mark applied for by Petitioner is
identical or confusingly similar with that of
Respondent’s?
1
Ruling:
▪ The “PHILIPS” mark is well-known
▪ In Freco Manufacturing Corporation v Harvard University:
▪ When well-known: If considered to be well-known by a
competent authority
▪ Competent authority – Court, Director General, Director of the
Bureau of Legal Affairs, any admin agency or office vested with
quasi-judicial or judicial jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate any
action to enforce the rights to a mark.
2
Ruling:
▪ Determining similarity and likelihood of confusion
o Dominancy test – focuses on similarities of prevalent
features
o Holistic or totality test – consideration of the entirety of
marks as applied to the product
▪ The mark “PHILITES” bears an uncanny resemblance or
confusing similarity with respondent’s mark “PHILIPS”
Ruling:
▪ Ordinary purchaser can conclude an association or relation
between the marks
▪ Both trademarks are used in the sale of the same goods
▪ The container or actual wrapper/packaging of Petitioner’s light
bulbs show that there is a strong similitude and likeness
between the two trademarks that will likely cause deception or
confusion to the purchasing public
Facts:
▪ In 2005, Starwood Hotels applied for registration of the mark
“W”
▪ Class 43 – services for providing food and drink; temporary
accommodation; and
▪ Class 44 – medical services; veterinary services; hygienic and beauty
care for human beings or animals; agriculture, horticulture and forestry
services
Facts:
▪ In 2006, W Land applied for registration of its own “W” mark
▪ Class 36 – insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real
estate affairs)
Facts:
▪ Starwood opposed
▪ W Land filed a petition to cancel Starwood’s mark for
non-use since it has no hotel or establishment
rendering the services covered by the registration.
Issue:
Ruling:
▪ Use
o Genuine, not merely token; bona fide use which results or
tends to result, into a commercial interaction
▪ Sufficient proof of actual use
o Website showing goods being sold or services being
rendered
o Use of the mark on an interactive website
o Respondent’s “W” mark is prominently displayed in the
website
BENGZON NEGRE UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. v. IFP Manufacturing Corporation
G.R. No. 221717; June 19, 2017
Facts:
▪ IFP filed an application for
the registration of the mark
“OK Hotdog Inasal” under
Class 30 (flour and
preparations made from
cereals)
Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. v. IFP Manufacturing Corporation
G.R. No. 221717; June 19, 2017
Facts:
▪ Mang Inasal is the owner
of the mark “Mang Inasal,
Home of Real Pinoy Style
Barbeque and Device”
under Class 43 (Services
providing food and drink)
o Registered with the
IPO in 2006
o Used since 2003
Issue:
Sub-Issue:
Whether “INASAL” can be appropriated as a
mark.
BENGZON NEGRE UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. v. IFP Manufacturing Corporation
G.R. No. 221717; June 19, 2017
Ruling:
▪ Concept of confusion:
o Confusion of goods – product confusion
o Confusion of business – source or origin confusion
▪ Dominancy Test
▪ Holistic or totality test
Ruling:
▪ IFP copied the dominant feature “INASAL” of
Mang Inasal
▪ The services of IFP and Mang Inasal are
related to each other
▪ An average buyer who comes across the curls
marketed under the OK Hotdog Inasal mark
is likely to be confused as to the true source of
such curls
BENGZON NEGRE UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. v. IFP Manufacturing Corporation
G.R. No. 221717; June 19, 2017
Ruling:
Facts:
▪ Puregold:
o Filed an application for the registration of the trademark
“COFFEE MATCH” with the IPO.
o Classified under Class 30 (coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, artificial
coffee, flour, etc.)
Facts:
▪ Nestle:
o Filed an opposition
o Exclusive owner of the “COFFEE-MATE” trademark
o Confusing similarity between “COFFEE-MATE” and
“COFFEE MATCH”
o "COFFEE-MATE" declared as an internationally well-
known mark
Issue:
Ruling:
▪ It may be registered.
▪ Determining similarity or likelihood of confusion:
o Dominancy Test – similarity of prevalent features
o Holistic Test – consideration of the entirety of the marks
▪ “COFFEE” is the common dominant feature
▪ IP Code prohibits exclusive registration of generic marks
▪ The word "COFFEE" cannot be exclusively appropriated by
either Nestle or Puregold since it is generic or descriptive of
the goods they seek to identify.
Ruling:
▪ Generic or descriptive words are not subject to
registration and belong to the public domain
▪ “MATE” v. “MATCH”
o Visual and aural characters are distinguishable
o Phonetic difference
FACTS:
Roberto owns a laundry business called, Lavandera Ko. He
claims to have used said mark since 1994.
Subsequently, his brother, Fernando, registered the same
mark with the IPO. Thus, he filed an action in RTC including
the cancellation of trademark registration.
RTC dismissed the action, stating that neither Robert nor
Fernando has the right over the mark Lavandera Ko because
the true owner of the mark is Santiago Suarez.
According to RTC, Suarez, in 1942, composed a song called,
Lavandera Ko. The RTC took notice of an article on the Internet.
BENGZON NEGRE UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
Is the RTC correct in its
ruling?
U.E. v. Masangkay
Juan vs. Juan
G.R. No. August
G.R. No. 221732, 226727 23, 2017
RULING:
Copyright should not be confused with trademark.
Copyright - intangible, incorporeal right granted by statute to the author or
originator of certain literary or artistic productions
Trademark - any designation which is adopted and used by a person to
denominate goods which he markets, or services which he renders, or
business which he conducts.
The mark, Lavandera Ko, used by Fernando and Robert, is
used as a tradename or service name since the business
involved consists of rendering laundry services.
The song, Lavandera Ko, composed by Suarez, is protected
by copyright, not trademark.
BENGZON NEGRE UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
De La Salle Montessori International of Malolos, Inc. v.
De La Salle Brothers Inc.
G.R. No. 233073; Feb. 07, 2018
Facts:
▪ Petitioner reserved with the SEC its corporate name
De La Salle Montessori International Malolos Inc.
▪ Respondents filed a petition against Petitioner with
the SEC to change the latter’s corporate name
Facts:
▪ Respondents' Argument:
o Petitioner’s corporate name is misleading or confusingly
similar
o Have acquired prior right to use the “De La Salle” and “La
Salle” names.
o The use of “De La Salle” gives an impression that it is part
of the “La Salle” group.
▪ Petitioner’s Argument:
o Respondents cannot claim the exclusive use “De La Salle”
because of the ruling in the Lyceum of the Philippines case.
BENGZON NEGRE UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
De La Salle Montessori International of Malolos, Inc. v. De La Salle
Brothers Inc.
G.R. No. 233073; Feb. 07, 2018
Issues:
Ruling:
▪ There is confusing similarity in corporate names
▪ Test is whether the similarity is such as to mislead a person
using ordinary care and discrimination
▪ Similarity in in the parties’ names but also the business they
are engaged in
▪ Proof of actual confusion not needed, it is enough that
confusion is probable or likely to occur.
BENGZON NEGRE UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
De La Salle Montessori International of Malolos, Inc. v.
De La Salle Brothers Inc.
G.R. No. 233073; Feb. 07, 2018
Ruling:
▪ The Lyceum of the Philippines case does not apply
▪ “Lyceum”
o Generally refers to a school or institution: Generic term
▪ "De La Salle"
o Means “the room”
o Suggestive or fanciful
BENGZON NEGRE UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
Citigroup, Inc. v. Citystate Savings Bank,
Inc., G.R. No. 205409, [June 13, 2018]
VS.
Citigroup, Inc. v. Citystate Savings Bank,
Inc., G.R. No. 205409, [June 13, 2018]
Citigroup, Inc. v. Citystate Savings Bank,
Inc., G.R. No. 205409, [June 13, 2018]
“Examining these marks, this Court finds that
petitioner's marks can best be described as consisting
of the prefix "CITI" added to other words.
“Applying the dominancy test, this Court sees
that the prevalent feature of respondent's mark, the
golden lion's head device, is not present at all in any of
petitioner's marks. The only similar feature between
respondent's mark and petitioner's collection of marks
is the word "CITY" in the former, and the "CITI" prefix
found in the latter. This Court agrees with the findings
of the Court of Appeals that this similarity alone is not
enough to create a likelihood of confusion.
Asia Pacific Resources v. Paperone, Inc.,
G.R. Nos. 213365-66, [December 10, 2018]
Asia Pacific Resources v. Paperone, Inc.,
G.R. Nos. 213365-66, [December 10, 2018]
Round 1
Kolin v. Kolin (March 25, 2015)
Round 2
Kolin v. Kolin (February 9, 2021)
4-1993-087497 4-2006-010021
Degree of Distinctiveness
KOLIN is a fanciful / coined word, hence it is a
Rights cases.
The goods covered by KECI’s KOLIN are related and
Bad Faith
The actions of KPII supported the conclusion that it
acted in bad faith when it filed the application for
kolin despite KECI already being the registered
owner of KOLIN.
ZUNECA V. NATRAPHARM
Compare:
Knowledge = Fraud
Knowledge = Fraud
“In the same vein, prior users in good faith are also protected in
the sense that they will not be made liable for trademark
infringement even if they are using a mark that was
subsequently registered by another person. This is expressed in
Section 159.1 of the IP Code, which reads:
SECTION 159. Limitations to Actions for Infringement. —
Guiding Principles:
1. A “generic” term names a “class” of goods or services,
rather than any particular feature or exemplification of
the class. “A generic term is one that refers to the
genus of which the particular product is a species.”
2. For a compound term, the distinctiveness inquiry
trains on the term’s meaning as a whole, not its parts
in isolation.
3. The relevant meaning of a term is its meaning to
consumers. “What do the buyers understand by the
word for whose use the parties are contending?”
USPTO v. Booking.com,
591 U. S. ___(2020)
Guiding Principles:
Eligibility for registration turns on the mark’s capacity to
“distinguis[h]” goods “in commerce.”
“[t]he primary significance of the registered mark to the
relevant public . . . shall be the test for determining
whether the registered mark has become the generic
name of goods or services.”
BENGZON
END OF SESSION 3
NEGRE
UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
THANK YOU !☺
FERDINAND M. NEGRE
BENGZON
NEGRE
UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
Public Domain;
◼Section 175 - Unprotected Subject Matter
◼Expired Term
Limitations:
Musical compositions
Dramatic or dramatico-
musical compositions
Computer
programs
Letters
Proof of Ownership?
Sec. 218 – Affidavit Evidence
Ownership of Copyright
Commissioned Work
Dramatizations,
translations,
arrangements
and other
alterations of
literary or
artistic works
DERIVATIVE WORKS
Collections of
literary, scholarly or
artistic works, and
compilations of data
which are original by
reason of selection
or coordination or
arrangement of their
contents
Extent of Protection: Derivative Works
From date of
death or
publication
BUT... Term
begins from
January 1 of the
year following
the event that
gave rise to them
Lyman Frank Baum
(May 15, 1856 – May 6, 1919)
DURATION OF ECONOMIC RIGHTS
Elements:
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Copyright Infringement
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Meaning,…
Limitations
▪ The Fair Use Exception – fair use for criticism,
ABS-CBN v. Gozon
G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015
J. Leonen
BENGZON
NEGRE
UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
ABS-CBN v. Gozon
First Issue
SC:
No Plagiarism
According to Black’s Law Dictionary: Plagiarism
is the “deliberate and knowing presentation of
another person’s original ideas or creative
expressions as one’s own.”
This cannot be the case here because as proved by
evidence, in the original drafts of the assailed
decision, there was attribution to the three
authors but due to errors made by Justice del
Castillo’s researcher, the attributions were
inadvertently deleted. There is therefore no intent
by Justice del Castillo to take these foreign works
as his own.
In re Del Castillo: the relevant issues
Court considered
these:
• Grassy knoll v. Chicago
RULING: skyline
• Right knee is bent,
forward jump v.
The Court ruled straight knees, upward
that Rentmeester movement
can copyright the • Right arm is bent v.
right arm is straight
specific pose but and pointed downward
not any pose.
Naruto, et. al. v. Slater
No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018)
Facts:
▪ Naruto was a 7 y.o. Crested Macaque that lived in
Sulawesi, Indonesia
▪ In 2011 wildlife photographer, Slater, looked for a
suitable area in the jungle, arranged his camera and
left it unattended; Naruto took several photograph of
himself (Monkey Selfies)
Naruto, et. al. v. Slater
No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018)
Facts:
▪ Slater and Wildlife Personalities, Ltd. published the
Monkey Selfies through Blurb, Inc. website in 2014.
▪ The book identifies Slater and Wildlife as the copyright
owners of the Monkey Selfies
▪ In 2015, PETA filed a complaint for copyright
infringement and assignment against Slater, et.al.
▪ Federal circuit court dismissed the complaint; PETA
appealed. Meantime, parties reached settlement.
Issues:
Ruling:
Facts:
▪ Varsity Brands, Inc.:
o Designs and manufactures clothing and accessories
for use in various athletic activities, including
cheerleading.
o Received copyright registration for the 2D artwork of
the designs which were very similar to the ones that
Star Athletica were advertising
o Sued Star Athletica
Facts:
▪ Star Athletica:
o The designs were not copyrightable
o “Useful articles” cannot be copyrighted
o Designs cannot be separated from the uniforms thus
cannot be copyrighted
▪ Varsity Brands:
o Designs were separable and non-functional thus
copyrightable.
Issue:
Ruling:
Ruling:
▪ The decoration designs of the cheerleading uniforms
satisfy both requirements.
▪ The fact that the designs on their own still retained
the outline of the cheerleading uniforms did not
prevent them from being copyrightable
▪ Artwork designed to fit a particular space or object
does not replicate that space or object when applied to
a different medium
Exceptions:
Public Domain;
◼Section 175 – Unprotected Subject Matters
◼Expired Term
Limitations:
END OF SESSION 4
NEGRE
UNTALAN
Intellectual Property Attorneys
THANK YOU !☺
FERDINAND M. NEGRE