Joaquin, Jr. vs. Drilon G.R. No.

108946, 302 SCRA 225 , January 28, 1999

Posted by Alchemy Business Center and Marketing Consultancy at 10:16 PM Labels: 302 SCRA 225, G.R. No. 108946, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE, January 28 1999, Joaquin, Jr. vs. Drilon

Joaquin, Jr. vs. Drilon G.R. No. 108946, 302 SCRA 225 , January 28, 1999 FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, JR., and BJ PRODUCTIONS, INC., petitioners, vs. HONORABLE FRANKLIN DRILON, GABRIEL ZOSA, WILLIAM ESPOSO, FELIPE MEDINA, JR., and CASEY FRANCISCO, respondents.

MENDOZA, J.: This is a petition for certiorari. Petitioners seek to annul the resolution of the Department of Justice, dated August 12, 1992, in Criminal Case No. Q-92-27854, entitled "Gabriel Zosa, et al. v. City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Francisco Joaquin, Jr.," and its resolution, dated December 3, 1992, denying petitioner Joaquin's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder/grantee of Certificate of Copyright No. M922, dated January 28, 1971, of Rhoda and Me, a dating game show aired from 1970 to 1977. On June 28, 1973, petitioner BJPI submitted to the National Library an addendum to its certificate of copyright specifying the show's format and style of presentation. On July 14, 1991, while watching television, petitioner Francisco Joaquin, Jr., president of BJPI, saw on RPN Channel 9 an episode of It's a Date, which was produced by IXL Productions, Inc. (IXL). On July 18, 1991, he wrote a letter to private respondent Gabriel M. Zosa, president and general manager of IXL, informing Zosa that BJPI had a copyright to Rhoda and Me and demanding that IXL discontinue airing It's a Date. In a letter, dated July 19, 1991, private respondent Zosa apologized to petitioner Joaquin and requested a meeting to discuss a possible settlement. IXL, however, continued airing It's a Date, prompting petitioner Joaquin to send a second letter on July 25, 1991 in which he reiterated his demand and warned that, if IXL did not comply, he would endorse the matter to his attorneys for proper legal action. Meanwhile, private respondent Zosa sought to register IXL's copyright to the first episode of It's a Date for which it was issued by the National Library a certificate of copyright August 14, 1991. Upon complaint of petitioners, an information for violation of P.D. No. 49 was filed against private respondent Zosa together with certain officers of RPN Channel 9, namely, William Esposo, Felipe Medina, and Casey Francisco, in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 92-27854 and assigned to Branch 104 thereof. However, private respondent Zosa sought a review of the resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor before the Department of Justice. On August 12, 1992, respondent Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon reversed the Assistant City Prosecutor's findings and directed him to move for the dismissal of the case against private respondents. 1 Petitioner Joaquin filed a motion for reconsideration, but his motion denied by respondent Secretary of Justice on December 3, 1992. Hence, this petition. Petitioners contend that: 1. The public respondent gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he invoked nonpresentation of the master tape as being fatal to the existence of probable cause to prove infringement, despite the fact that private respondents never raised the same as a controverted issue.

2. The public respondent gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he arrogated unto himself the determination of what is copyrightable an issue which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the regional trial court to assess in a proper proceeding. Both public and private respondents maintain that petitioners failed to establish the existence of probable cause due to their failure to present the copyrighted master videotape of Rhoda and Me. They contend that petitioner BJPI's copyright covers only a specific episode of Rhoda and Me and that the formats or concepts of dating game shows are not covered by copyright protection under P.D. No. 49. Non-Assignment of Error. Petitioners claim that their failure to submit the copyrighted master videotape of the television show Rhoda and Me was not raised in issue by private respondents during the preliminary investigation and, therefore, it was error for the Secretary of Justice to reverse the investigating prosecutor's finding of probable cause on this ground. A preliminary investigation falls under the authority of the state prosecutor who is given by law the power to direct and control criminal actions. 2 He is, however, subject to the control of the Secretary of Justice. Thus, Rule 112, 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides: Sec. 4. Duty of investigating fiscal. If the investigating fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and corresponding information. He shall certify under oath that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend dismissal of the complaint. In either case, he shall forward the records of the case to the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor within five (5) days from his resolution. The latter shall take appropriate action thereon ten (10) days from receipt thereof, immediately informing the parties of said action. No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor. Where the investigating assistant fiscal recommends the dismissal of the case but his findings are reversed by the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor on the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself, file the corresponding information against the respondent or direct any other assistant fiscal or state prosecutor to do so, without conducting another preliminary investigation. If upon petition by a proper party, the Secretary of Justice reverses the resolution of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file the corresponding information without conducting another preliminary investigation or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information. In reviewing resolutions of prosecutors, the Secretary of Justice is not precluded from considering errors, although unassigned, for the purpose of determining whether there is probable cause for filing cases in court. He must make his own finding, of probable cause and is not confined to the issues raised by the parties during preliminary investigation. Moreover, his findings are not subject to review unless shown to have been made with grave abuse. Opinion of the Secretary of Justice Petitioners contend, however, that the determination of the question whether the format or mechanics of a show is entitled to copyright protection is for the court, and not the Secretary of Justice, to make. They assail the following portion of the resolution of the respondent Secretary of Justice: [T]he 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. Apart from the manner in which it is actually expressed, however, the idea of a dating game show is, in the opinion of this Office, 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. 3 (Emphasis added.)

It is indeed true that the question whether the format or mechanics of petitioners television show is entitled to copyright protection is a legal question for the court to make. This does not, however, preclude respondent Secretary of Justice from making a preliminary determination of this question in resolving whether there is probable cause for filing the case in court. In doing so in this case, he did not commit any grave error. Presentation of Master Tape Petitioners claim that respondent Secretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion in ruling that the master videotape should have been predented in order to determine whether there was probable cause for copyright infringement. They contend that 20th Century Fox Film Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 4 on which respondent Secretary of Justice relied in reversing the resolution of the investigating prosecutor, is inapplicable to the case at bar because in the present case, the parties presented sufficient evidence which clearly establish "linkage between the copyright show "Rhoda and Me" and the infringing TV show "It's a Date." 5 The case of 20th Century Fox Film Corporation involved raids conducted on various videotape outlets allegedlly selling or renting out "pirated" videotapes. The trial court found that the affidavits of NBI agents, given in support of the application for the search warrant, were insufficient without the master tape. Accordingly, the trial court lifted the search warrants it had previously issued against the defendants. On petition for review, this Court sustained the action of the trial court and ruled: 6 The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those who have in their possession the pirated films. The petitioner's argument to the effect that the presentation of the master tapes at the time of application may not be necessary as these would be merely evidentiary in nature and not determinative of whether or not a probable cause exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants is not meritorious. The court cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from master tapes that it owns. The application for search warrants was directed against video tape outlets which allegedly were engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films belonging to the petitioner pursuant to P.D. 49. The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to the copyrighted work. Hence, the applicant must present to the court the copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former. This linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant. This ruling was qualified in the later case of Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 7 in which it was held: In fine, the supposed pronunciamento in said case regarding the necessity for the presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films for the validity of search warrants should at most be understood to merely serve as a guidepost in determining the existence of probable cause in copyright infringement cases where there is doubt as to the true nexus between the master tape and the printed copies. An objective and careful reading of the decision in said case could lead to no other conclusion than that said directive was hardly intended to be a sweeping and inflexible requirement in all or similar copyright infringement cases. . . 8 In the case at bar during the preliminary investigation, petitioners and private respondents presented written descriptions of the formats of their respective televisions shows, on the basis of which the investigating prosecutor ruled: As may [be] gleaned from the evidence on record, the substance of the television productions complainant's "RHODA AND ME" and Zosa's "IT'S A DATE" is that two matches are made between a male and a female, both single, and the two couples are treated to a night or two of dining and/or dancing at the expense of the show. The major concepts of both shows is the same. Any difference appear mere variations of the major concepts. That there is an infringement on the copyright of the show "RHODA AND ME" both in content and in the execution of the video presentation are established because respondent's "IT'S A DATE" is practically an exact copy of complainant's "RHODA AND ME" because of substantial similarities as follows, to wit: RHODA AND ME

"IT'S A DATE" Set 1 Set 1 a. Unmarried participant of one gender (searcher) appears on one side of a divider, while three (3) unmarried participants of the other gender are on the other side of the divider. This arrangement is done to ensure that the searcher does not see the searchees. a. same b. Searcher asks a question to be answered by each of the searchees. The purpose is to determine who among the searchees is the most compatible with the searcher. b. same c. Searcher speculates on the match to the searchee. c. same d. Selection is made by the use of compute (sic) methods, or by the way questions are answered, or similar methods. d. Selection is based on the answer of the Searchees. Set 2 Set 2 Same as above with the genders of the searcher and searchees interchanged. 9 same Petitioners assert that the format of Rhoda and Me is a product of ingenuity and skill and is thus entitled to copyright protection. It is their position that the presentation of a point-by-point comparison of the formats of the two shows clearly demonstrates the nexus between the shows and hence establishes the existence of probable cause for copyright infringement. Such being the case, they did not have to produce the master tape. To begin with the format of a show is not copyrightable. Section 2 of P.D. No. 49, 10 otherwise known as the DECREE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, enumerates the classes of work entitled to copyright protection, to wit: Sec. 2. The rights granted by this Decree shall, from the moment of creation, subsist with respect to any of the following classes of works: (A) (B) (C) (D) Books, including composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts, directories, and gazetteers: Periodicals, including pamphlets and newspapers; Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery; Letters;

(E) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb shows, the acting form of which is fixed in writing or otherwise; (F) Musical compositions, with or without words;

(G) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography, and other works of art; models or designs for works of art;

(H)

Reproductions of a work of art;

(I) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not patentable, and other works of applied art; (J) (K) (I) Maps, plans, sketches, and charts; Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character; Photographic works and works produced by a process analogous to photography lantern slides;

(M) Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings; (N) (O) Computer programs; Prints, pictorial illustrations advertising copies, labels tags, and box wraps;

(P) Dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgements, arrangements and other alterations of literary, musical or artistic works or of works of the Philippine government as herein defined, which shall be protected as provided in Section 8 of this Decree. (Q) Collections of literary, scholarly, or artistic works or of works referred to in Section 9 of this Decree which by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations, the same to be protected as such in accordance with Section 8 of this Decree. (R) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.

This provision is substantially the same as 172 of the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293). 11 The format or mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of protected works in 2 of P.D. No. 49. For this reason, the protection afforded by the law cannot be extended to cover them. Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. It is a new or independent right granted by the statute, and not simply a pre-existing right regulated by the statute. Being a statutory grant, the rights are only such as the statute confers, and may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects and by the persons and on terms and conditions specified in the statute. 12 Since . . . copyright in published works is purely a statutory creation, a copyright may be obtained only for a work falling within the statutory enumeration or description. 13 Regardless of the historical viewpoint, it is authoritatively settled in the United States that there is no copyright except that which is both created and secured by act of Congress . . . . . 14 P.D. No. 49, 2, in enumerating what are subject to copyright, refers to finished works and not to concepts. The copyright does not extend to an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. 15 Thus, the new INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES provides: Sec. 175. Unprotected Subject Matter. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 172 and 173, no protection shall extend, under this law, to any idea, procedure, system, method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere data as such, even if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work; news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information; or any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof. What then is the subject matter of petitioners' copyright? This Court is of the opinion that petitioner BJPI's copyright covers audio-visual recordings of each episode of Rhoda and Me, as falling within the class of works mentioned in P.D. 49, 2(M), to wit:

Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings; The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating game show. Accordingly, by the very nature of the subject of petitioner BJPI's copyright, the investigating prosecutor should have the opportunity to compare the videotapes of the two shows. Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game shows is insufficient; the presentation of the master videotape in evidence was indispensable to the determination of the existence of probable cause. As aptly observed by respondent Secretary of Justice: 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. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 115758. March 19, 2002]

ELIDAD C. KHO, doing business under the name and style of KEC COSMETICS LABORATORY, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SUMMERVILLE GENERAL MERCHANDISING and COMPANY, and ANG TIAM CHAY, respondents. DECISION
DE LEON, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] dated May 24, 1993 of the Court of Appeals setting aside and declaring as null and void the Orders[2] dated February 10, 1992 and March 19, 1992 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, of Quezon City granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The facts of the case are as follows: On December 20, 1991, petitioner Elidad C. Kho filed a complaint for injunction and damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-91-10926, against the respondents Summerville General Merchandising and Company (Summerville, for brevity) and Ang Tiam Chay. The petitioners complaint alleges that petitioner, doing business under the name and style of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory, is the registered owner of the copyrights Chin Chun Su and Oval Facial Cream Container/Case, as shown by Certificates of Copyright Registration No. 0-1358 and No. 0-3678; that she also has patent rights on Chin Chun Su & Device and Chin Chun Su for

medicated cream after purchasing the same from Quintin Cheng, the registered owner thereof in the Supplemental Register of the Philippine Patent Office on February 7, 1980 under Registration Certificate No. 4529; that respondent Summerville advertised and sold petitioners cream products under the brand name Chin Chun Su, in similar containers that petitioner uses, thereby misleading the public, and resulting in the decline in the petitioners business sales and income; and, that the respondents should be enjoined from allegedly infringing on the copyrights and patents of the petitioner. The respondents, on the other hand, alleged as their defense that Summerville is the exclusive and authorized importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun Su products manufactured by Shun Yi Factory of Taiwan; that the said Taiwanese manufacturing company authorized Summerville to register its trade name Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream with the Philippine Patent Office and other appropriate governmental agencies; that KEC Cosmetics Laboratory of the petitioner obtained the copyrights through misrepresentation and falsification; and, that the authority of Quintin Cheng, assignee of the patent registration certificate, to distribute and market Chin Chun Su products in the Philippines had already been terminated by the said Taiwanese Manufacturing Company. After due hearing on the application for preliminary injunction, the trial court granted the same in an Order dated February 10, 1992, the dispositive portion of which reads:

ACCORDINGLY, the application of plaintiff Elidad C. Kho, doing business under the style of KEC Cosmetic Laboratory, for preliminary injunction, is hereby granted. Consequentially, plaintiff is required to file with the Court a bond executed to defendants in the amount of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to the effect that plaintiff will pay to defendants all damages which defendants may sustain by reason of the injunction if the Court should finally decide that plaintiff is not entitled thereto. SO ORDERED.[3]
The respondents moved for reconsideration but their motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court in an Order dated March 19, 1992.[4] On April 24, 1992, the respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 27803, praying for the nullification of the said writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court. After the respondents filed their reply and almost a month after petitioner submitted her comment, or on August 14 1992, the latter moved to dismiss the petition for violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91, a circular prohibiting forum shopping. According to the petitioner, the respondents did not state the docket number of the civil case in the caption of their petition and, more significantly, they did not include therein a certificate of non-forum shopping. The respondents opposed the petition and submitted to the appellate court a certificate of non-forum shopping for their petition. On May 24, 1993, the appellate court rendered a Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 27803 ruling in favor of the respondents, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby given due course and the orders of respondent court dated February 10, 1992 and March 19, 1992 granting the writ of preliminary injunction and denying petitioners motion for reconsideration are hereby set aside and declared null and void. Respondent court is directed to forthwith proceed with the trial of Civil Case No. Q-91-10926 and resolve the issue raised by the parties on the merits. SO ORDERED.[5]
In granting the petition, the appellate court ruled that:

The registration of the trademark or brandname Chin Chun Su by KEC with the supplemental register of the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer cannot be equated with registration in the principal register, which is duly protected by the Trademark Law. xxx xxx xxx

As ratiocinated in La Chemise Lacoste, S.S. vs. Fernandez, 129 SCRA 373, 393: Registration in the Supplemental Register, therefore, serves as notice that the registrant is using or has appropriated the trademark. By the very fact that the trademark cannot as yet be on guard and there are certain defects, some obstacles which the use must still overcome before he can claim legal ownership of the mark or ask the courts to vindicate his claims of an exclusive right to the use of the same. It would be deceptive for a party with nothing more than a registration in the Supplemental Register to posture before courts of justice as if the registration is in the Principal Register. The reliance of the private respondent on the last sentence of the Patent office action on application Serial No. 30954 that registrants is presumed to be the owner of the mark until after the registration is declared cancelled is, therefore, misplaced and grounded on shaky foundation. The supposed presumption not only runs counter to the precept embodied in Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Practice before the Philippine Patent Office in Trademark Cases but considering all the facts ventilated before us in the four interrelated petitions involving the petitioner and the respondent, it is devoid of factual basis. As even in cases where presumption and precept may factually be reconciled, we have held that the presumption is rebuttable, not conclusive, (People v. Lim Hoa, G.R. No. L-10612, May 30, 1958, Unreported). One may be declared an unfair competitor even if his competing trademark is registered (Parke, Davis & Co. v. Kiu Foo & Co., et al., 60 Phil 928; La Yebana Co. v. chua Seco & Co., 14 Phil 534).[6]

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. This she followed with several motions to declare respondents in contempt of court for publishing advertisements notifying the public of the promulgation of the assailed decision of the appellate court and stating that genuine Chin Chun Su products could be obtained only from Summerville General Merchandising and Co. In the meantime, the trial court went on to hear petitioners complaint for final injunction and damages. On October 22, 1993, the trial court rendered a Decision[7] barring the petitioner from using the trademark Chin Chun Su and upholding the right of the respondents to use the same, but recognizing the copyright of the petitioner over the oval shaped container of her beauty cream. The trial court did not award damages and costs to any of the parties but to their respective counsels were awarded Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) each as attorneys fees. The petitioner duly appealed the said decision to the Court of Appeals. On June 3, 1994, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution[8] denying the petitioners motions for reconsideration and for contempt of court in CA-G.R. SP No. 27803. Hence, this petition anchored on the following assignment of errors:
I

RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN FAILING TO RULE ON PETITIONERS MOTION TO DISMISS.
II

RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN REFUSING TO PROMPTLY RESOLVE PETITIONERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
III

IN DELAYING THE RESOLUTION OF PETITIONERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DENIED PETITIONERS RIGHT TO SEEK TIMELY APPELLATE RELIEF AND VIOLATED PETITIONERS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
IV

RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN FAILING TO CITE THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IN CONTEMPT.[9]

The petitioner faults the appellate court for not dismissing the petition on the ground of violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91. Also, the petitioner contends that the appellate court violated Section 6, Rule 9 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals when it failed to rule on her motion for reconsideration within ninety (90) days from the time it is submitted for resolution. The appellate court ruled only after the lapse of three hundred fifty-four (354) days, or on June 3, 1994. In delaying the resolution thereof, the appellate court denied the petitioners right to seek the timely appellate relief. Finally, petitioner describes as arbitrary the denial of her motions for contempt of court against the respondents. We rule in favor of the respondents. Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, one of the grounds for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is a proof that the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually. Thus, a preliminary injunction order may be granted only when the application for the issuance of the same shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded.[10] This is the reason why we have ruled that it must be shown that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable, and, that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[11] In the case at bar, the petitioner applied for the issuance of a preliminary injunctive order on the ground that she is entitled to the use of the trademark on Chin Chun Su and its container based on her copyright and patent over the same. We first find it appropriate to rule on whether the copyright and patent over the name and container of a beauty cream product would entitle the registrant to the use and ownership over the same to the exclusion of others. Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot be interchanged with one another. 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.[12] In relation thereto, a trade name means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise.[13] Meanwhile, 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.[14] Patentable inventions, on the other hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable.[15] Petitioner 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 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. The petitioners 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.

We cannot likewise overlook the decision of the trial court in the case for final injunction and damages. The dispositive portion of said decision held that the petitioner does not have trademark rights on the name and container of the beauty cream product. The said decision on the merits of the trial court rendered the issuance of the writ of a preliminary injunction moot and academic notwithstanding the fact that the same has been appealed in the Court of Appeals. This is supported by our ruling in La Vista Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[16], to wit:

Considering that preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy which may be granted at any time after the commencement of the action and before judgment when it is established that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded and only when his complaint shows facts entitling such reliefs xxx and it appearing that the trial court had already granted the issuance of a final injunction in favor of petitioner in its decision rendered after trial on the merits xxx the Court resolved to Dismiss the instant petition having been rendered moot and academic. An injunction issued by the trial court after it has already made a clear pronouncement as to the plaintiffs right thereto, that is, after the same issue has been decided on the merits, the trial court having appreciated the evidence presented, is proper, notwithstanding the fact that the decision rendered is not yet final xxx. Being an ancillary remedy, the proceedings for preliminary injunction cannot stand separately or proceed independently of the decision rendered on the merit of the main case for injunction. The merit of the main case having been already determined in favor of the applicant, the preliminary determination of its non-existence ceases to have any force and effect. (italics supplied)
La Vista categorically pronounced that the issuance of a final injunction renders any question on the preliminary injunctive order moot and academic despite the fact that the decision granting a final injunction is pending appeal. Conversely, a decision denying the applicant-plaintiffs right to a final injunction, although appealed, renders moot and academic any objection to the prior dissolution of a writ of preliminary injunction. The petitioner argues that the appellate court erred in not dismissing the petition for certiorari for non-compliance with the rule on forum shopping. We disagree. First, the petitioner improperly raised the technical objection of non-compliance with Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 by filing a motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari filed in the appellate court. This is prohibited by Section 6, Rule 66 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that (I)n petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the provisions of Section 2, Rule 56, shall be observed. Before giving due course thereto, the court may require the respondents to file their comment to, and not a motion to dismiss, the petition xxx (italics supplied). Secondly, the issue was raised one month after petitioner had filed her answer/comment and after private respondent had replied thereto. Under Section 1, Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss shall be filed within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim. She therefore could no longer submit a motion to dismiss nor raise defenses and objections not included in the answer/comment she had earlier tendered. Thirdly, substantial justice and equity require this Court not to revive a dissolved writ of injunction in favor of a party without any legal right

thereto merely on a technical infirmity. The granting of an injunctive writ based on a technical ground rather than compliance with the requisites for the issuance of the same is contrary to the primary objective of legal procedure which is to serve as a means to dispense justice to the deserving party. The petitioner likewise contends that the appellate court unduly delayed the resolution of her motion for reconsideration. But we find that petitioner contributed to this delay when she filed successive contentious motions in the same proceeding, the last of which was on October 27, 1993, necessitating counter-manifestations from private respondents with the last one being filed on November 9, 1993. Nonetheless, it is well-settled that non-observance of the period for deciding cases or their incidents does not render such judgments ineffective or void. [17] With respect to the purported damages she suffered due to the alleged delay in resolving her motion for reconsideration, we find that the said issue has likewise been rendered moot and academic by our ruling that she has no right over the trademark and, consequently, to the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Finally, we rule that the Court of Appeals correctly denied the petitioners several motions for contempt of court. There is nothing contemptuous about the advertisements complained of which, as regards the proceedings in CA-G.R. SP No. 27803 merely announced in plain and straightforward language the promulgation of the assailed Decision of the appellate court. Moreover, pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the said decision nullifying the injunctive writ was immediately executory. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated May 24, 1993 and June 3, 1994, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED. With costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 161295. June 29, 2005]

JESSIE G. CHING, petitioner, vs. WILLIAM M. SALINAS, SR., WILLIAM M. SALINAS, JR., JOSEPHINE L. SALINAS, JENNIFER Y. SALINAS, ALONTO SOLAIMAN SALLE, JOHN ERIC I. SALINAS, NOEL M. YABUT (Board of Directors and Officers of WILAWARE PRODUCT CORPORATION), respondents. DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision[1] and Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 70411 affirming the January 3, 2002 and February 14, 2002 Orders[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 1, which quashed and set aside Search Warrant Nos. 01-2401 and 01-2402 granted in favor of petitioner Jessie G. Ching. 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 Eye Bushing for Automobile made up of plastic. On September 4, 2001, Ching and Joseph Yu were issued by the National Library Certificates of Copyright Registration and Deposit of the said work described therein as Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile.[4] On September 20, 2001, Ching requested the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for police/investigative assistance for the apprehension and prosecution of illegal manufacturers, producers and/or distributors of the works.[5] After due investigation, the NBI filed applications for search warrants in the RTC of Manila against William Salinas, Sr. and the officers and members of the Board of Directors of Wilaware Product Corporation. It was alleged that the respondents therein reproduced and distributed the said models penalized under Sections 177.1 and 177.3 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293. The applications sought the seizure of the following:
a.) b.) c.) d.) e.) Undetermined quantity of Leaf spring eye bushing for automobile that are made up of plastic polypropylene; Undetermined quantity of Leaf spring eye bushing for automobile that are made up of polyvinyl chloride plastic; Undetermined quantity of Vehicle bearing cushion that is made up of polyvinyl chloride plastic; Undetermined quantity of Dies and jigs, patterns and flasks used in the manufacture/fabrication of items a to d; Evidences of sale which include delivery receipts, invoices and official receipts.[6]

The RTC granted the application and issued Search Warrant Nos. 012401 and 01-2402 for the seizure of the aforecited articles.[7] In the inventory submitted by the NBI agent, it appears that the following articles/items were seized based on the search warrants: Leaf Spring eye bushing
a) Plastic Polypropylene

- C190 - C240 rear - C240 front b) Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic - C190 c) Vehicle bearing cushion - center bearing cushion

27 } 40 } 41 } 13 } 11 }

BAG 1

Budder for C190 mold Diesel Mold

a) b) c) d) Mold for spring eye bushing rear Mold for spring eye bushing front Mold for spring eye bushing for C190 1 set Mold for C240 rear

8 }
1 set 1 set 1 piece of the set 2 sets 1 set 1 set[8]

e) Mold for spring eye bushing for L300 f) Mold for leaf spring eye bushing C190 with metal g) Mold for vehicle bearing cushion

The respondents filed a motion to quash the search warrants on the following grounds: 2. The copyright registrations were issued in violation of the Intellectual Property Code on the ground that: a) b) the subject matter of the registrations are not artistic or literary; the subject matter of the registrations are spare parts of automobiles meaning there (sic) are original parts that they are designed to replace. Hence, they are not original.[9]

The respondents averred that the works covered by the certificates issued by the National Library are not artistic in nature; they are considered automotive spare parts and pertain to technology. They aver that the models are not original, and as such are the proper subject of a patent, not copyright.[10] In opposing the motion, the petitioner averred that the court which issued the search warrants was not the proper forum in which to articulate the issue of the validity of the copyrights issued to him. Citing the ruling of the Court in Malaloan v. Court of Appeals,[11] the petitioner stated that a search warrant is merely a judicial process designed by the Rules of Court in anticipation of a criminal case. Until his copyright was nullified in a proper proceeding, he enjoys rights of a registered owner/holder thereof.

On January 3, 2002, the trial court issued an Order[12] granting the motion, and quashed the search warrant on its finding that there was no probable cause for its issuance. The court ruled that the work covered by the certificates issued to the petitioner pertained to solutions to technical problems, not literary and artistic as provided in Article 172 of the Intellectual Property Code. His motion for reconsideration of the order having been denied by the trial courts Order of February 14, 2002, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the CA, contending that the RTC had no jurisdiction to delve into and resolve the validity of the copyright certificates issued to him by the National Library. He insisted that his works are covered by Sections 172.1 and 172.2 of the Intellectual Property Code. The petitioner averred that the copyright certificates are prima facie evidence of its validity, citing the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals in Wildlife Express Corporation v. Carol Wright Sales, Inc.[13] The petitioner asserted that the respondents failed to adduce evidence to support their motion to quash the search warrants. The petitioner noted that respondent William Salinas, Jr. was not being honest, as he was able to secure a similar copyright registration of a similar product from the National Library on January 14, 2002. On September 26, 2003, the CA rendered judgment dismissing the petition on its finding that the RTC did not commit any grave abuse of its discretion in issuing the assailed order, to wit: It is settled that preliminarily, there must be a finding that a specific offense must have been committed to justify the issuance of a search warrant. In a number of cases decided by the Supreme Court, the same is explicitly provided, thus: The probable cause must be in connection with one specific offense, and the judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and any witness he may produce, on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavit submitted. In the determination of probable cause, the court must necessarily resolve whether or not an offense exists to justify the issuance or quashal of the search warrant. In the instant case, the petitioner is praying for the reinstatement of the search warrants issued, but subsequently quashed, for the offense of Violation of Class Designation of Copyrightable Works under Section 177.1 in relation to Section 177.3 of Republic Act 8293, when the objects subject of the same, are patently not copyrightable.

It is worthy to state that the works protected under the Law on Copyright are: literary or artistic works (Sec. 172) and derivative works (Sec. 173). The Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion fall on neither classification. Accordingly, if, in the first place, the item subject of the petition is not entitled to be protected by the law on copyright, how can there be any violation?[14] The petitioners motion for reconsideration of the said decision suffered the same fate. The petitioner forthwith filed the present petition for review on certiorari, contending that the revocation of his copyright certificates should be raised in a direct action and not in a search warrant proceeding. The petitioner posits that even assuming ex argumenti that the trial court may resolve the validity of his copyright in a proceeding to quash a search warrant for allegedly infringing items, the RTC committed a grave abuse of its discretion when it declared that his works are not copyrightable in the first place. He claims that R.A. No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, which took effect on January 1, 1998, provides in no uncertain terms that copyright protection automatically attaches to a work by the sole fact of its creation, irrespective of its mode or form of expression, as well as of its content, quality or purpose.[15] The law gives a non-inclusive definition of work as referring to original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation; and includes original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not registrable as an industrial design and other works of applied art under Section 172.1(h) of R.A. No. 8293. As such, the petitioner insists, notwithstanding the classification of the works as either literary and/or artistic, the said law, likewise, encompasses works which may have a bearing on the utility aspect to which the petitioners utility designs were classified. Moreover, according to the petitioner, what the Copyright Law protects is the authors intellectual creation, regardless of whether it is one with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article produced on an industrial scale. The petitioner also maintains that the law does not provide that the intended use or use in industry of an article eligible for patent bars or invalidates its registration under the Law on Copyright. The test of protection for the aesthetic is not beauty and utility, but art for the copyright and invention of original and ornamental design for design patents.[16] In like manner, the fact that his utility designs or models for articles of manufacture have been expressed in the field of automotive parts, or based on something already in the public domain does not automatically remove them from the protection of the Law on Copyright.[17]

The petitioner faults the CA for ignoring Section 218 of R.A. No. 8293 which gives the same presumption to an affidavit executed by an author who claims copyright ownership of his work. The petitioner adds that a finding of probable cause to justify the issuance of a search warrant means merely a reasonable suspicion of the commission of the offense. It is not equivalent to absolute certainty or a finding of actual and positive cause.[18] He assists that the determination of probable cause does not concern the issue of whether or not the alleged work is copyrightable. He maintains that to justify a finding of probable cause in the issuance of a search warrant, it is enough that there exists a reasonable suspicion of the commission of the offense. The petitioner contends that he has in his favor the benefit of the presumption that his copyright is valid; hence, the burden of overturning this presumption is on the alleged infringers, the respondents herein. But this burden cannot be carried in a hearing on a proceeding to quash the search warrants, as the issue therein is whether there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. The petitioner concludes that the issue of probable cause should be resolved without invalidating his copyright. In their comment on the petition, the respondents aver that the work of the petitioner is essentially a technical solution to the problem of wear and tear in automobiles, the substitution of materials, i.e., from rubber to plastic matter of polyvinyl chloride, an oil resistant soft texture plastic material strong enough to endure pressure brought about by the vibration of the counter bearing and thus brings bushings. Such work, the respondents assert, is the subject of copyright under Section 172.1 of R.A. No. 8293. The respondents posit that a technical solution in any field of human activity which is novel may be the subject of a patent, and not of a copyright. They insist that the certificates issued by the National Library are only certifications that, at a point in time, a certain work was deposited in the said office. Furthermore, the registration of copyrights does not provide for automatic protection. Citing Section 218.2(b) of R.A. No. 8293, the respondents aver that no copyright is said to exist if a party categorically questions its existence and legality. Moreover, under Section 2, Rule 7 of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 8293, the registration and deposit of work is not conclusive as to copyright outlay or the time of copyright or the right of the copyright owner. The respondents maintain that a copyright exists only when the work is covered by the protection of R.A. No. 8293. The petition has no merit.

The RTC had jurisdiction to delve into and resolve the issue whether the petitioners utility models are copyrightable and, if so, whether he is the owner of a copyright over the said models. It bears stressing that upon the filing of the application for search warrant, the RTC was duty-bound to determine whether probable cause existed, in accordance with Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure: SEC. 4. Requisite for issuing search warrant. A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and, particularly, describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. In Solid Triangle Sales Corporation v. The Sheriff of RTC QC, Br. 93, the Court held that in the determination of probable cause, the court must necessarily resolve whether or not an offense exists to justify the issuance of a search warrant or the quashal of one already issued by the court. Indeed, probable cause is deemed to exist only where facts and circumstances exist which could lead a reasonably cautious and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed or is being committed. Besides, in Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal property (a) subject of the offense; (b) stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; or (c) used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
[19]

The RTC is mandated under the Constitution and Rules of Criminal Procedure to determine probable cause. The court cannot abdicate its constitutional obligation by refusing to determine whether an offense has been committed.[20] The absence of probable cause will cause the outright nullification of the search warrant.[21] For the RTC to determine whether the crime for infringement under R.A. No. 8293 as alleged in an application is committed, the petitioner-applicant was burdened to prove that (a) respondents Jessie Ching and Joseph Yu were the owners of copyrighted material; and (b) the copyrighted material was being copied and distributed by the respondents. Thus, the ownership of a valid copyright is essential.[22] Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by proof of originality and copyrightability. By originality is meant that the material was not copied, and evidences at least minimal creativity; that it was independently created by the author and that it possesses at least same minimal degree of

creativity.[23] Copying is shown by proof of access to copyrighted material and substantial similarity between the two works.[24] The applicant must thus demonstrate the existence and the validity of his copyright because in the absence of copyright protection, even original creation may be freely copied.[25] By requesting the NBI to investigate and, if feasible, file an application for a search warrant for infringement under R.A. No. 8293 against the respondents, the petitioner thereby authorized the RTC (in resolving the application), to delve into and determine the validity of the copyright which he claimed he had over the utility models. The petitioner cannot seek relief from the RTC based on his claim that he was the copyright owner over the utility models and, at the same time, repudiate the courts jurisdiction to ascertain the validity of his claim without running afoul to the doctrine of estoppel. To discharge his burden, the applicant may present the certificate of registration covering the work or, in its absence, other evidence.[26] A copyright certificate provides prima facie evidence of originality which is one element of copyright validity. It constitutes prima facie evidence of both validity and ownership[27] and the validity of the facts stated in the certificate.[28] The presumption of validity to a certificate of copyright registration merely orders the burden of proof. The applicant should not ordinarily be forced, in the first instance, to prove all the multiple facts that underline the validity of the copyright unless the respondent, effectively challenging them, shifts the burden of doing so to the applicant.[29] Indeed, Section 218.2 of R.A. No. 8293 provides: 218.2. In an action under this Chapter: (a) Copyright shall be presumed to subsist in the work or other subject matter to which the action relates if the defendant does not put in issue the question whether copyright subsists in the work or other subject matter; and (b) Where the subsistence of the copyright is established, the plaintiff shall be presumed to be the owner of the copyright if he claims to be the owner of the copyright and the defendant does not put in issue the question of his ownership. A certificate of registration creates no rebuttable presumption of copyright validity where other evidence in the record casts doubt on the question. In such a case, validity will not be presumed.[30] To discharge his burden of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant for violation of R.A. No. 8293, the petitioner-applicant submitted to the

RTC Certificate of Copyright Registration Nos. 2001-197 and 2001-204 dated September 3, 2001 and September 4, 2001, respectively, issued by the National Library covering work identified as Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile and Vehicle Bearing Cushion both classified under Section 172.1(h) of R.A. No. 8293, to wit: SEC. 172. Literary and Artistic Works. 172.1. Literary and artistic works, hereinafter referred to as works, are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation and shall include in particular: ... (h) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not registrable as an industrial design, and other works of applied art. Related to the provision is Section 171.10, which provides that a work of applied art is an artistic creation with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article, whether made by hand or produced on an industrial scale. But, as gleaned from the specifications appended to the application for a copyright certificate filed by the petitioner, the said Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile is merely a utility model described as comprising a generally cylindrical body having a co-axial bore that is centrally located and provided with a perpendicular flange on one of its ends and a cylindrical metal jacket surrounding the peripheral walls of said body, with the bushing made of plastic that is either polyvinyl chloride or polypropylene.[31] Likewise, the Vehicle Bearing Cushion is illustrated as a bearing cushion comprising a generally semi-circular body having a central hole to secure a conventional bearing and a plurality of ridges provided therefore, with said cushion bearing being made of the same plastic materials.[32] Plainly, these are not literary or artistic works. They are not intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain, or works of applied art. They are certainly not ornamental designs or one having decorative quality or value. It bears stressing that the focus of copyright is the usefulness of the artistic design, and not its marketability. The central inquiry is whether the article is a work of art.[33] Works for applied art include all original pictorials, graphics, and sculptural works that are intended to be or have been embodied in useful article regardless of factors such as mass production, commercial exploitation, and the potential availability of design patent protection.[34]

As gleaned from the description of the models and their objectives, these articles are useful articles which are defined as one having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. Indeed, while works of applied art, original intellectual, literary and artistic works are copyrightable, useful articles and works of industrial design are not.[35] A useful article may be copyrightable only if and only to the extent that such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article. We agree with the contention of the petitioner (citing Section 171.10 of R.A. No. 8293), that the authors intellectual creation, regardless of whether it is a creation with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article produced on an industrial scale, is protected by copyright law. However, the law refers to a work of applied art which is an artistic creation. 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.[36] Functional components of useful articles, no matter how artistically designed, have generally been denied copyright protection unless they are separable from the useful article.[37] In this case, the petitioners models are not works of applied art, nor artistic works. They are utility models, useful articles, albeit with no artistic design or value. Thus, the petitioner described the utility model as follows: LEAF SPRING EYE BUSHING FOR AUTOMOBILE Known bushings inserted to leaf-spring eye to hold leaf-springs of automobile are made of hard rubber. These rubber bushings after a time, upon subjecting them to so much or intermittent pressure would eventually wore (sic) out that would cause the wobbling of the leaf spring. The primary object of this utility model, therefore, is to provide a leaf-spring eye bushing for automobile that is made up of plastic. Another object of this utility model is to provide a leaf-spring eye bushing for automobiles made of polyvinyl chloride, an oil resistant soft texture plastic or polypropylene, a hard plastic, yet both causes cushion to the leaf spring, yet strong enough to endure pressure brought about by the up and down movement of said leaf spring.

Yet, an object of this utility model is to provide a leaf-spring eye bushing for automobiles that has a much longer life span than the rubber bushings. Still an object of this utility model is to provide a leaf-spring eye bushing for automobiles that has a very simple construction and can be made using simple and ordinary molding equipment. A further object of this utility model is to provide a leaf-spring eye bushing for automobile that is supplied with a metal jacket to reinforce the plastic eye bushing when in engaged with the steel material of the leaf spring. These and other objects and advantages will come to view and be understood upon a reading of the detailed description when taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. Figure 1 is an exploded perspective of a leaf-spring eye bushing according to the present utility model; Figure 2 is a sectional view taken along line 2-2 of Fig. 1; Figure 3 is a longitudinal sectional view of another embodiment of this utility model; Figure 4 is a perspective view of a third embodiment; and Figure 5 is a sectional view thereof. Referring now to the several views of the drawings wherein like reference numerals designated same parts throughout, there is shown a utility model for a leaf-spring eye bushing for automobile generally designated as reference numeral 10. Said leaf-spring eye bushing 10 comprises a generally cylindrical body 11 having a co-axial bore 12 centrally provided thereof. As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, said leaf-spring eye bushing 10 is provided with a perpendicular flange 13 on one of its ends and a cylindrical metal jacket 14 surrounding the peripheral walls 15 of said body 11. When said leaf-spring bushing 10 is installed, the metal jacket 14 acts with the leaf-spring eye (not shown), which is also made of steel or cast steel. In effect, the bushing 10 will not be directly in contact with steel, but rather the metal jacket, making the life of the bushing 10 longer than those without the metal jacket.

In Figure 2, the bushing 10 as shown is made of plastic, preferably polyvinyl chloride, an oil resistant soft texture plastic or a hard polypropylene plastic, both are capable to endure the pressure applied thereto, and, in effect, would lengthen the life and replacement therefor. Figure 3, on the other hand, shows the walls 16 of the co-axial bore 12 of said bushing 10 is insertably provided with a steel tube 17 to reinforce the inner portion thereof. This steel tube 17 accommodates or engages with the leaf-spring bolt (not shown) connecting the leaf spring and the automobiles chassis. Figures 4 and 5 show another embodiment wherein the leaf eye bushing 10 is elongated and cylindrical as to its construction. Said another embodiment is also made of polypropylene or polyvinyl chloride plastic material. The steel tube 17 and metal jacket 14 may also be applied to this embodiment as an option thereof.[38] VEHICLE BEARING CUSHION Known bearing cushions inserted to bearing housings for vehicle propeller shafts are made of hard rubber. These rubber bushings after a time, upon subjecting them to so much or intermittent pressure would eventually be worn out that would cause the wobbling of the center bearing. The primary object of this utility model therefore is to provide a vehicle-bearing cushion that is made up of plastic. Another object of this utility model is to provide a vehicle bearing cushion made of polyvinyl chloride, an oil resistant soft texture plastic material which causes cushion to the propellers center bearing, yet strong enough to endure pressure brought about by the vibration of the center bearing. Yet, an object of this utility model is to provide a vehicle-bearing cushion that has a much longer life span than rubber bushings. Still an object of this utility model is to provide a vehicle bearing cushion that has a very simple construction and can be made using simple and ordinary molding equipment. These and other objects and advantages will come to view and be understood upon a reading of the detailed description when taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.

Figure 1 is a perspective view of the present utility model for a vehicle-bearing cushion; and Figure 2 is a sectional view thereof. Referring now to the several views of the drawing, wherein like reference numeral designate same parts throughout, there is shown a utility model for a vehicle-bearing cushion generally designated as reference numeral 10. Said bearing cushion 10 comprises of a generally semi-circular body 11, having central hole 12 to house a conventional bearing (not shown). As shown in Figure 1, said body 11 is provided with a plurality of ridges 13 which serves reinforcing means thereof. The subject bearing cushion 10 is made of polyvinyl chloride, a soft texture oil and chemical resistant plastic material which is strong, durable and capable of enduring severe pressure from the center bearing brought about by the rotating movement of the propeller shaft of the vehicle.[39] A utility model is a technical solution to a problem in any field of human activity which is new and industrially applicable. It may be, or may relate to, a product, or process, or an improvement of any of the aforesaid.[40]Essentially, a utility model refers to an invention in the mechanical field. This is the reason why its object is sometimes described as a device or useful object.[41] A utility model varies from an invention, for which a patent for invention is, likewise, available, on at least three aspects: first, the requisite of inventive step[42] in a patent for invention is not required; second, the maximum term of protection is only seven years[43] compared to a patent which is twenty years,[44] both reckoned from the date of the application; and third, the provisions on utility model dispense with its substantive examination[45] and prefer for a less complicated system. Being plain automotive spare parts that must conform to the original structural design of the components they seek to replace, the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion are not ornamental. They lack the decorative quality or value that must characterize authentic works of applied art. They are not even artistic creations with incidental utilitarian functions or works incorporated in a useful article. In actuality, the personal properties described in the search warrants are mechanical works, the principal function of which is utility sans any aesthetic embellishment. Neither are we to regard the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion as included in the catch-all phrase other literary, scholarly, scientific

and artistic works in Section 172.1(a) of R.A. No. 8293. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis which states that where a statute describes things of a particular class or kind accompanied by words of a generic character, the generic word will usually be limited to things of a similar nature with those particularly enumerated, unless there be something in the context of the state which would repel such inference,[46] the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion are not copyrightable, being not of the same kind and nature as the works enumerated in Section 172 of R.A. No. 8293. 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. Indeed, in Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon[47] and Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated v. Shoemart, Incorporated,[48] the Court ruled that: Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. It is a new or independent right granted by the statute, and not simply a pre-existing right regulated by it. Being a statutory grant, the rights are only such as the statute confers, and may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects and by the persons, and on terms and conditions specified in the statute. Accordingly, it can cover only the works falling within the statutory enumeration or description. That the works of the petitioner may be the proper subject of a patent does not entitle him to the issuance of a search warrant for violation of copyright laws. In Kho v. Court of Appeals[49] and Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated v. Shoemart, Incorporated,[50] the Court ruled that these copyright and patent rights are completely distinct and separate from one another, and the protection afforded by one cannot be used interchangeably to cover items or works that exclusively pertain to the others. The Court expounded further, thus: Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot be interchanged with one another. 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. In relation thereto, a trade name means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise. Meanwhile, 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. Patentable inventions, on the other hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable.

The petitioner cannot find solace in the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Mazer v. Stein[51] to buttress his petition. In that case, the artifacts involved in that case were statuettes of dancing male and female figures made of semi-vitreous china. The controversy therein centered on the fact that although copyrighted as works of art, the statuettes were intended for use and used as bases for table lamps, with electric wiring, sockets and lampshades attached. The issue raised was whether the statuettes were copyright protected in the United States, considering that the copyright applicant intended primarily to use them as lamp bases to be made and sold in quantity, and carried such intentions into effect. At that time, the Copyright Office interpreted the 1909 Copyright Act to cover works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form, but not the utilitarian aspects, were concerned. After reviewing the history and intent of the US Congress on its copyright legislation and the interpretation of the copyright office, the US Supreme Court declared that the statuettes were held copyrightable works of art or models or designs for works of art. The High Court ruled that: Works of art (Class G) (a) In General. This class includes works of artistic craftsmanship, in so far as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned, such as artistic jewelry, enamels, glassware, and tapestries, as well as all works belonging to the fine arts, such as paintings, drawings and sculpture. So we have a contemporaneous and long-continued construction of the statutes by the agency charged to administer them that would allow the registration of such a statuette as is in question here.[52] The High Court went on to state that [t]he dichotomy of protection for the aesthetic is not beauty and utility but art for the copyright and the invention of original and ornamental design for design patents. Significantly, the copyright office promulgated a rule to implement Mazer to wit: [I]f the sole intrinsic function of an article is its utility, the fact that the work is unique and attractively shaped will not qualify it as a work of art. In this case, the bushing and cushion are not works of art. They are, as the petitioner himself admitted, utility models which may be the subject of a patent. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70411 are AFFIRMED. Search Warrant Nos.

01-2401 and 01-2402 issued on October 15, 2001 are ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Puno, JJ., concur. (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario,

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 148222. August 15, 2003]

PEARL & DEAN (PHIL.), INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. SHOEMART, INCORPORATED, and NORTH EDSA MARKETING, INCORPORATED, respondents. DECISION
CORONA, J.:

In the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Pearl & Dean (Phil.) Inc. (P & D) assails the May 22, 2001 decision [1] of the Court of Appeals reversing the October 31, 1996 decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 133, in Civil Case No. 92-516 which declared private respondents Shoemart Inc. (SMI) and North Edsa Marketing Inc. (NEMI) liable for infringement of trademark and copyright, and unfair competition.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS The May 22, 2001 decision of the Court of Appeals[3] contained a summary of this dispute:

Plaintiff-appellant Pearl and Dean (Phil.), Inc. is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of advertising display units simply referred to as light boxes. These units utilize specially printed posters sandwiched between plastic sheets and illuminated with back lights. Pearl and Dean was able to secure a Certificate of Copyright Registration dated January 20, 1981 over these illuminated display units. The advertising light boxes were marketed under the trademark Poster Ads. The application for registration of the trademark was filed with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer on June 20, 1983, but was approved only on September 12, 1988, per Registration No. 41165. From 1981 to about 1988, Pearl and

Dean employed the services of Metro Industrial Services to manufacture its advertising displays. Sometime in 1985, Pearl and Dean negotiated with defendant-appellant Shoemart, Inc. (SMI) for the lease and installation of the light boxes in SM City North Edsa. Since SM City North Edsa was under construction at that time, SMI offered as an alternative, SM Makati and SM Cubao, to which Pearl and Dean agreed. On September 11, 1985, Pearl and Deans General Manager, Rodolfo Vergara, submitted for signature the contracts covering SM Cubao and SM Makati to SMIs Advertising Promotions and Publicity Division Manager, Ramonlito Abano. Only the contract for SM Makati, however, was returned signed. On October 4, 1985, 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, but also for SM Cubao. SMI did not bother to reply. Instead, in a letter dated January 14, 1986, SMIs house counsel informed Pearl and Dean that it was rescinding the contract for SM Makati due to non-performance of the terms thereof. In his reply dated February 17, 1986, Vergara protested the unilateral action of SMI, saying it was without basis. In the same letter, he pushed for the signing of the contract for SM Cubao. Two years later, Metro Industrial Services, the company formerly contracted by Pearl and Dean to fabricate its display units, offered to construct light boxes for Shoemarts chain of stores. SMI approved the proposal and ten (10) light boxes were subsequently fabricated by Metro Industrial for SMI. After its contract with Metro Industrial was terminated, SMI engaged the services of EYD Rainbow Advertising Corporation to make the light boxes. Some 300 units were fabricated in 1991. These were delivered on a staggered basis and installed at SM Megamall and SM City. Sometime in 1989, Pearl and Dean, received reports that exact copies of its light boxes were installed at SM City and in the fastfood section of SM Cubao. Upon investigation, Pearl and Dean found out that aside from the two (2) reported SM branches, light boxes similar to those it manufactures were also installed in two (2) other SM stores. It further discovered that defendant-appellant North Edsa Marketing Inc. (NEMI), through its marketing arm, Prime Spots Marketing Services, was set up primarily to sell advertising space in lighted display units located in SMIs different branches. Pearl and Dean noted that NEMI is a sister company of SMI. In the light of its discoveries, Pearl and Dean sent a letter dated December 11, 1991 to both SMI and NEMI enjoining them to cease using the subject light boxes and to remove the same from SMIs establishments. It also demanded the discontinued use

of the trademark Poster Ads, and the payment to Pearl and Dean of compensatory damages in the amount of Twenty Million Pesos (P20,000,000.00). Upon receipt of the demand letter, SMI suspended the leasing of two hundred twentyfour (224) light boxes and NEMI took down its advertisements for Poster Ads from the lighted display units in SMIs stores. Claiming that both SMI and NEMI failed to meet all its demands, Pearl and Dean filed this instant case for infringement of trademark and copyright, unfair competition and damages. In denying the charges hurled against it, SMI maintained that it independently developed its poster panels using commonly known techniques and available technology, without notice of or reference to Pearl and Deans copyright. SMI noted that the registration of the mark Poster Ads was only for stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes, and the like. Besides, according to SMI, the word Poster Ads is a generic term which cannot be appropriated as a trademark, and, as such, registration of such mark is invalid. It also stressed that Pearl and Dean is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in its complaint since its advertising display units contained no copyright notice, in violation of Section 27 of P.D. 49. SMI alleged that Pearl and Dean had no cause of action against it and that the suit was purely intended to malign SMIs good name. On this basis, SMI, aside from praying for the dismissal of the case, also counterclaimed for moral, actual and exemplary damages and for the cancellation of Pearl and Deans Certification of Copyright Registration No. PD-R2558 dated January 20, 1981 and Certificate of Trademark Registration No. 4165 dated September 12, 1988. NEMI, for its part, denied having manufactured, installed or used any advertising display units, nor having engaged in the business of advertising. It repleaded SMIs averments, admissions and denials and prayed for similar reliefs and counterclaims as SMI.
The RTC of Makati City decided in favor of P & D:

Wherefore, defendants SMI and NEMI are found jointly and severally liable for infringement of copyright under Section 2 of PD 49, as amended, and infringement of trademark under Section 22 of RA No. 166, as amended, and are hereby penalized under Section 28 of PD 49, as amended, and Sections 23 and 24 of RA 166, as amended. Accordingly, defendants are hereby directed: (1) (a) to pay plaintiff the following damages: actual damages P16,600,000.00, representing profits

derived by defendants as a result of infringement of plaintiffs copyright from 1991 to 1992 (b) (c) (d) (e) moral damages - P1,000.000.00

exemplary damages - P1,000,000.00 attorneys fees plus costs of suit; (2) to deliver, under oath, for impounding in the National Library, all light boxes of SMI which were fabricated by Metro Industrial Services and EYD Rainbow Advertising Corporation; to deliver, under oath, to the National Library, all filler-posters using the trademark Poster Ads, for destruction; and to permanently refrain from infringing the copyright on plaintiffs light boxes and its trademark Poster Ads. - P1,000,000.00

(3) (4)

Defendants counterclaims are hereby ordered dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.
[4]

On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court:

Since the light boxes cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as either prints, pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags or box wraps, to be properly classified as a copyrightable class O work, we have to agree with SMI when it posited that what was copyrighted were the technical drawings only, and not the light boxes themselves, thus: 42. When a drawing is technical and depicts a utilitarian object, a copyright over the drawings like plaintiff-appellants will not extend to the actual object. It has so been held under jurisprudence, of which the leading case is Baker vs. Selden (101 U.S. 841 (1879). In that case, Selden had obtained a copyright protection for a book entitled Seldens Condensed Ledger or Bookkeeping Simplified which purported to explain a new system of bookkeeping. Included as part of the book were blank forms and illustrations consisting of ruled lines and headings, specially designed for use in

connection with the system explained in the work. These forms showed the entire operation of a day or a week or a month on a single page, or on two pages following each other. The defendant Baker then produced forms which were similar to the forms illustrated in Seldens copyrighted books. The Court held that exclusivity to the actual forms is not extended by a copyright. The reason was that to grant a monopoly in the underlying art when no examination of its novelty has ever been made would be a surprise and a fraud upon the public; that is the province of letters patent, not of copyright. And that is precisely the point. No doubt aware that its alleged original design would never pass the rigorous examination of a patent application, plaintiffappellant fought to foist a fraudulent monopoly on the public by conveniently resorting to a copyright registration which merely employs a recordal system without the benefit of an in-depth examination of novelty. The principle in Baker vs. Selden was likewise applied in Muller vs. Triborough Bridge Authority [43 F. Supp. 298 (S.D.N.Y. 1942)]. In this case, Muller had obtained a copyright over an unpublished drawing entitled Bridge Approach the drawing showed a novel bridge approach to unsnarl traffic congestion. The defendant constructed a bridge approach which was alleged to be an infringement of the new design illustrated in plaintiffs drawings. In this case it was held that protection of the drawing does not extend to the unauthorized duplication of the object drawn because copyright extends only to the description or expression of the object and not to the object itself. It does not prevent one from using the drawings to construct the object portrayed in the drawing. In two other cases, Imperial Homes Corp. v. Lamont, 458 F. 2d 895 and Scholtz Homes, Inc. v. Maddox, 379 F. 2d 84, it was held that there is no copyright infringement when one who, without being authorized, uses a copyrighted architectural plan to construct a structure. This is because the copyright does not extend to the structures themselves. In fine, we cannot find SMI liable for infringing Pearl and Deans copyright over the technical drawings of the latters advertising display units. xxx xxx xxx

The Supreme Court trenchantly held in Faberge, Incorporated vs. Intermediate Appellate Court that the protective mantle of the Trademark Law extends only to the goods used by the first user as specified in the certificate of registration, following the clear mandate conveyed by Section 20 of Republic Act 166, as amended, otherwise known as the Trademark Law, which reads:

SEC. 20. Certification of registration prima facie evidence of validity.- A certificate of registration of a mark or trade-name shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, the registrants ownership of the mark or trade-name, and of the registrants exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods , business or services specified in the certificate, subject to any conditions and limitations stated therein. (underscoring supplied) The records show that on June 20, 1983, Pearl and Dean applied for the registration of the trademark Poster Ads with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfer. Said trademark was recorded in the Principal Register on September 12, 1988 under Registration No. 41165 covering the following products: stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes and calling cards and newsletters. With this as factual backdrop, we see no legal basis to the finding of liability on the part of the defendants-appellants for their use of the words Poster Ads, in the advertising display units in suit. Jurisprudence has interpreted Section 20 of the Trademark Law as an implicit permission to a manufacturer to venture into the production of goods and allow that producer to appropriate the brand name of the senior registrant on goods other than those stated in the certificate of registration. The Supreme Court further emphasized the restrictive meaning of Section 20 when it stated, through Justice Conrado V. Sanchez, that: Really, if the certificate of registration were to be deemed as including goods not specified therein, then a situation may arise whereby an applicant may be tempted to register a trademark on any and all goods which his mind may conceive even if he had never intended to use the trademark for the said goods. We believe that such omnibus registration is not contemplated by our Trademark Law. While we do not discount the striking similarity between Pearl and Deans registered trademark and defendants-appellants Poster Ads design, as well as the parallel use by which said words were used in the parties respective advertising copies, we cannot find defendants-appellants liable for infringement of trademark. Poster Ads was registered by Pearl and Dean for specific use in its stationeries, in contrast to defendants-appellants who used the same words in their advertising display units. Why Pearl and Dean limited the use of its trademark to stationeries is simply beyond us. But, having already done so, it must stand by the consequence of the registration which it had caused. xxx xxx xxx

We are constrained to adopt the view of defendants-appellants that the words Poster Ads are a simple contraction of the generic term poster advertising. In the absence of

any convincing proof that Poster Ads has acquired a secondary meaning in this jurisdiction, we find that Pearl and Deans exclusive right to the use of Poster Ads is limited to what is written in its certificate of registration, namely, stationeries. Defendants-appellants cannot thus be held liable for infringement of the trademark Poster Ads. There being no finding of either copyright or trademark infringement on the part of SMI and NEMI, the monetary award granted by the lower court to Pearl and Dean has no leg to stand on. xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another is rendered DISMISSING the complaint and counterclaims in the above-entitled case for lack of merit.
[5]

Dissatisfied with the above decision, petitioner P & D filed the instant petition assigning the following errors for the Courts consideration:

A.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT WAS COMMITTED BY RESPONDENTS SM AND NEMI; THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT NO INFRINGEMENT OF PEARL & DEANS TRADEMARK POSTER ADS WAS COMMITTED BY RESPONDENTS SM AND NEMI; THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE AWARD OF THE TRIAL COURT, DESPITE THE LATTERS FINDING, NOT DISPUTED BY THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THAT SM WAS GUILTY OF BAD FAITH IN ITS NEGOTIATION OF ADVERTISING CONTRACTS WITH PEARL & DEAN. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING RESPONDENTS SM AND NEMI LIABLE TO PEARL & DEAN FOR ACTUAL, MORAL & EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS OF SUIT.
[6]

B.

C.

D.

ISSUES

In resolving this very interesting case, we are challenged once again to put into proper perspective four main concerns of intellectual property law patents, copyrights, trademarks and unfair competition arising from infringement of any of the first three. We shall focus then on the following issues:

(1) if the engineering or technical drawings of an advertising display unit (light box) are granted copyright protection (copyright certificate of registration) by the National Library, is the light box depicted in such engineering drawings ipso facto also protected by such copyright? (2) or should the light box be registered separately and protected by a patent issued by the Bureau of Patents Trademarks and Technology Transfer (now Intellectual Property Office) in addition to the copyright of the engineering drawings? (3) can the owner of a registered trademark legally prevent others from using such trademark if it is a mere abbreviation of a term descriptive of his goods, services or business?
ON THE ISSUE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Petitioner P & Ds 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. Obviously, petitioners position was premised on its belief that i ts copyright over the engineering drawings extended ipso facto to the light boxes depicted or illustrated in said drawings. In ruling that there was no copyright infringement, the Court of Appeals held that the copyright was limited to the drawings alone and not to the light box itself. We agree with the appellate court. First, petitioners application for a copyright certificate as well as Copyright Certificate No. PD-R2588 issued by the National Library on January 20, 1981 clearly stated that it was for a class O work under Section 2 (O) of PD 49 (The Intellectual Property Decree) which was the statute then prevailing. Said Section 2 expressly enumerated the works subject to copyright:

SEC. 2. The rights granted by this Decree shall, from the moment of creation, subsist with respect to any of the following works: xxxxxx xxx

(O) Prints, pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags, and box wraps; xxxxxx xxx

Although petitioners copyright certificate was entitled Advertising Display Units (which depicted the box-type electrical devices), its claim of copyright infringement cannot be sustained. Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. Being a mere statutory grant, the rights are limited to what the statute confers. It may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects and by the persons, and on terms and conditions specified in the statute.[7] Accordingly, it can cover only the works falling within the statutory enumeration or description.[8] P & D secured its copyright under the classification class O work. This being so, petitioners 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, pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags and box wraps. Stated otherwise, even as we find that P & D indeed owned a valid copyright, the same could have referred only to the technical drawings within the category of pictorial illustrations. It could not have possibly stretched out to include the underlying light box. The strict application[9] of the laws enumeration in Section 2 prevents us from giving petitioner even a little leeway, that is, even if its copyright certificate was entitled Advertising Display Units. What the law does not include, it excludes, and for the good reason: the light box was not a literary or artistic piece which could be copyrighted under the copyright law. And no less clearly, neither could the lack of statutory authority to make the light box copyrightable be remedied by the simplistic act of entitling the copyright certificate issued by the National Library as Advertising Display Units. In fine, if SMI and NEMI reprinted P & Ds technical drawings for sale to the public without license from P & D, then no doubt they would have been guilty of copyright infringement. But this was not the case. SMIs and NEMIs acts complained of by P & D were to have units similar or identical to the light box illustrated in the technical drawings manufactured by Metro and EYD Rainbow Advertising, for leasing out to different advertisers. Was this an infringement of petitioners copyright over the technical drawings? We do not think so. During the trial, 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.[10] Obviously, there appeared to be some confusion regarding what ought or ought not to be the proper subjects of copyrights, patents and trademarks. In the leading case of Kho vs. Court of Appeals,[11] we ruled that these three legal rights are completely distinct and separate from one another, and the protection afforded by one cannot be used interchangeably to cover items or works that exclusively pertain to the others:

Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot be interchanged with one another. 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. In relation thereto, a trade name means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise. Meanwhile, 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. Patentable inventions, on the other hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable.
ON THE ISSUE OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT This brings us to the next point: if, despite its manufacture and commercial use of the light boxes without license from petitioner, private respondents cannot be held legally liable for infringement of P & Ds copyright over its technical drawings of the said light boxes, should they be liable instead for infringement of patent? We do not think so either. For some reason or another, petitioner never secured a patent for the light boxes. It therefore acquired no patent rights which could have protected its invention, if in fact it really was. And because it had no patent, petitioner could not legally prevent anyone from manufacturing or commercially using the contraption. In Creser Precision Systems, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[12] we held that there can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has been issued, since whatever right one has to the invention covered by the patent arises alone from the grant of patent. x x x (A)n inventor has no common law right to a monopoly of his invention. He has the right to make use of and vend his invention, but if he voluntarily discloses it, such as by offering it for sale, the world is free to copy and use it with impunity. A patent, however, gives the inventor the right to exclude all others. As a patentee, he has the exclusive right of making, selling or using the invention.[13] On the assumption that petitioners advertising units were patentable inventions, petitioner revealed them fully to the public by submitting the engineering drawings thereof to the National Library. To be able to effectively and legally preclude others from copying and profiting from the invention, a patent is a primordial requirement. No patent, no protection. The ultimate goal of a patent system is to bring new designs and technologies into the public domain through disclosure.[14] Ideas, once disclosed to the public without the protection of a valid patent, are subject to appropriation without significant restraint.[15] On one side of the coin is the public which will benefit from new ideas; on the other are the inventors who must be protected. As held in Bauer & Cie vs. ODonnel,[16] The act secured to the inventor the exclusive right to make use, and vend the thing patented, and consequently to prevent others from exercising like privileges without the consent of the patentee. It was passed for the purpose of encouraging useful invention and promoting new and useful inventions by the protection and stimulation given to inventive genius, and was intended to secure to the public, after the lapse of the exclusive privileges granted the benefit of such inventions and improvements. The law attempts to strike an ideal balance between the two interests:

(The p)atent system thus embodies a carefully crafted bargain for encouraging the creation and disclosure of new useful and non-obvious advances in technology and design, in return for the exclusive right to practice the invention for a number of years. The inventor may keep his invention secret and reap its fruits indefinitely. In consideration of its disclosure and the consequent benefit to the community, the patent is granted. An exclusive enjoyment is guaranteed him for 17 years, but upon the expiration of that period, the knowledge of the invention inures to the people, who are thus enabled to practice it and profit by its use.
[17]

The patent law has a three-fold purpose: first, patent law seeks to foster and reward invention; second, it promotes disclosures of inventions to stimulate further innovation and to permit the public to practice the invention once the patent expires; third, the stringent requirements for patent protection seek to ensure that ideas in the public domain remain there for the free use of the public.[18] It is only after an exhaustive examination by the patent office that a patent is issued. Such an in-depth investigation is required because in rewarding a useful invention, the rights and welfare of the community must be fairly dealt with and effectively guarded. To that end, the prerequisites to obtaining a patent are strictly observed and when a patent is issued, the limitations on its exercise are equally strictly enforced. To begin with, a genuine invention or discovery must be demonstrated lest in the constant demand for new appliances, the heavy hand of tribute be laid on each slight technological advance in art.[19] There is no such scrutiny in the case of copyrights nor any notice published before its grant to the effect that a person is claiming the creation of a work. The law confers the copyright from the moment of creation[20] and the copyright certificate is issued upon registration with the National Library of a sworn ex-parte claim of creation. Therefore, not having gone through the arduous examination for patents, the petitioner cannot exclude others from the manufacture, sale or commercial use of the light boxes on the sole basis of its copyright certificate over the technical drawings. Stated otherwise, what petitioner seeks is exclusivity without any opportunity for the patent office (IPO) to scrutinize the light boxs eligibility as a patentable inventio n. The irony here is that, had petitioner secured a patent instead, its exclusivity would have been for 17 years only. But through the simplified procedure of copyright-registration with the National Library without undergoing the rigor of defending the patentability of its invention before the IPO and the public the petitioner would be protected for 50 years. This situation could not have been the intention of the law. In the oft-cited case of Baker vs. Selden[21], the United States Supreme Court held that only the expression of an idea is protected by copyright, not the idea itself . In that case, the plaintiff held the copyright of a book which expounded on a new accounting system he had developed. The publication illustrated blank forms of ledgers utilized in such a system. The defendant reproduced forms similar to those illustrated in the plaintiffs copyrighted book. The US Supreme Court ruled that:

There is no doubt that a work on the subject of book-keeping, though only explanatory of well known systems, may be the subject of a copyright; but, then, it is claimed only as a book. x x x. But there is a clear distinction between the books, as such, and the art, which it is, intended to illustrate. The mere statement of the proposition is so evident that it requires hardly any argument to support it. The same distinction may be predicated of every other art as well as that of bookkeeping. A treatise on the composition and use of medicines, be they old or new; on the construction and use of ploughs or watches or churns; or on the mixture and application of colors for painting or dyeing; or on the mode of drawing lines to produce the effect of perspective, would be the subject of copyright; but no one would contend that the copyright of the treatise would give the exclusive right to the art or manufacture described therein. The copyright of the book, if not pirated from other works, would be valid without regard to the novelty or want of novelty of its subject matter. The novelty of the art or thing described or explained has nothing to do with the validity of the copyright. To give to the author of the book an exclusive property in the art described therein, when no examination of its novelty has ever been officially made, would be a surprise and a fraud upon the public. That is the province of letters patent, not of copyright. The claim to an invention of discovery of an art or manufacture must be subjected to the examination of the Patent Office before an exclusive right therein can be obtained; and a patent from the government can only secure it. The difference between the two things, letters patent and copyright, may be illustrated by reference to the subjects just enumerated. Take the case of medicines. Certain mixtures are found to be of great value in the healing art. If the discoverer writes and publishes a book on the subject (as regular physicians generally do), he gains no exclusive right to the manufacture and sale of the medicine; he gives that to the public. If he desires to acquire such exclusive right, he must obtain a patent for the mixture as a new art, manufacture or composition of matter. He may copyright his book, if he pleases; but that only secures to him the exclusive right of printing and publishing his book. So of all other inventions or discoveries. The copyright of a book on perspective, no matter how many drawings and illustrations it may contain, gives no exclusive right to the modes of drawing described, though they may never have been known or used before. By publishing the book without getting a patent for the art, the latter is given to the public. x x x Now, whilst no one has a right to print or publish his book, or any material part thereof, as a book intended to convey instruction in the art, any person may practice and use the art itself which he has described and illustrated therein. The use of the

art is a totally different thing from a publication of the book explaining it. The copyright of a book on bookkeeping cannot secure the exclusive right to make, sell and use account books prepared upon the plan set forth in such book. Whether the art might or might not have been patented, is a question, which is not before us. It was not patented, and is open and free to the use of the public. And, of course, in using the art, the ruled lines and headings of accounts must necessarily be used as incident to it. The plausibility of the claim put forward by the complainant in this case arises from a confusion of ideas produced by the peculiar nature of the art described in the books, which have been made the subject of copyright. In describing the art, the illustrations and diagrams employed happened to correspond more closely than usual with the actual work performed by the operator who uses the art. x x x The description of the art in a book, though entitled to the benefit of copyright, lays no foundation for an exclusive claim to the art itself. The object of the one is explanation; the object of the other is use. The former may be secured by copyright. The latter can only be secured, if it can be secured at all, by letters patent. (underscoring supplied)
ON THE ISSUE OF TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT This issue concerns the use by respondents of the mark Poster Ads which petitioners president said was a contraction of poster advertising. P & D was able to secure a trademark certificate for it, but one where the goods specified were stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes, calling cards and newsletters.[22] Petitioner admitted it did not commercially engage in or market these goods. On the contrary, it dealt in electrically operated backlit advertising units and the sale of advertising spaces thereon, which, however, were not at all specified in the trademark certificate. Under the circumstances, the Court of Appeals correctly cited Faberge Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,[23] where we, invoking Section 20 of the old Trademark Law, 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, subject to any conditions and limitations specified in the certificate x x x. 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.[24] Faberge, Inc. was correct and was in fact recently reiterated in Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs. Court of Appeals.[25] Assuming arguendo that Poster Ads could validly qualify as a trademark, 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.

ON THE ISSUE OF UNFAIR COMPETITION If at all, the cause of action should have been for unfair competition, a situation which was possible even if P & D had no registration. [26] However, while the petitioners complaint in the RTC also cited unfair competition, the trial court did not find private respondents liable therefor. Petitioner did not appeal this particular point; hence, it cannot now revive its claim of unfair competition. But even disregarding procedural issues, we nevertheless cannot hold respondents guilty of unfair competition. By the nature of things, there can be no unfair competition under the law on copyrights although it is applicable to disputes over the use of trademarks. Even a name or phrase incapable of appropriation as a trademark or tradename may, by long and exclusive use by a business (such that the name or phrase becomes associated with the business or product in the mind of the purchasing public), be entitled to protection against unfair competition.[27]In this case, there was no evidence that P & Ds use of Poster Ads was distinctive or well-known. As noted by the Court of Appeals, petitioners expert witnesses himself had testified that Poster Ads was too generic a name. So it was difficult to identify it with any company, honestly speaking. [28] This crucial admission by its own expert witness that Poster Ads could not be associated with P & D showed that, in the mind of the public, the goods and services carrying the trademark Poster Ads could not be distinguished from the goods and services of other entities. This fact also prevented the application of the doctrine of secondary meaning. Poster Ads was generic and incapable of being used as a trademark because it was used in the field of poster advertising, the very business engaged in by petitioner. Secondary meaning means that a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article in the market (because it is geographically or otherwise descriptive) might nevertheless have been used for so long and so exclusively by one producer with reference to his article that, in the trade and to that branch of the purchasing public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his property.[29] The admission by petitioners own expert witness that he himself could not associate Poster Ads with petitioner P & D because it was too generic definitely precluded the application of this exception. Having discussed the most important and critical issues, we see no need to belabor the rest. All told, the Court finds no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals when it reversed the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 22, 2001 is AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED. Puno, JJ., concur. (Chairman), Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio-Morales,