You are on page 1of 2

Intellectual Property Digest:

JOHN MARK A. CAMALON

2014

Manly Sportswear Manufacturing v. Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center


G.R. No. 165306

FACTS 45

!etition for review on certiorari under Rule

(NBI applied for a search warrant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Que on Cit!" based on the infor#ation that $adodette %nterprises and&or 'er#es (ports Center were in possession of cop!righted goods of )anl! (portswear )fg*" Inc* ()+N,-)* .n )arch /0" 1223" RTC issued a search warrant against $adodette %nterprises and&or 'er#es (ports Center after finding reasonable grounds that respondents violated (ections /01 and 1/0 of Republic +ct (R+) No* 4153 Respondents #oved to 6uash the search warrant clai#ing that the sporting goods are ordinar! hence" not a#ong the classes protected under (ec* /01 of R+ 4153* Trial court granted the #otion to 6uash based on its finding that the cop!righted products of )+N,do not appear to be original creations and were being #anufactured and distributed b! different co#panies locall! and abroad under various brands* )+N,- filed a #otion for reconsideration but was denied* )+N,- filed a petition for review of certiorari in the Court of +ppeals but was also denied*
"SS#E

confer an! right or title upon the registered cop!right owner or auto#aticall! put his wor; under the protective #antle of the cop!right law* It is not a conclusive proof of cop!right ownership* %&"'Microsoft Corp v. (udy Hwang) et al. *+ ,-./-0 (une 1,) 1//2
FACTS

In )a! /553" )icrosoft Corp* and Beltron Co#puter =hils*" Inc* entered into a ,icensing +gree#ent where Beltron was authori ed to reproduce and install no #ore than one cop! of )icrosoft software on each custo#er s!ste# hard dis; and distribute directl! or indirectl! and license copies of 7indows Their agree#ent allowed either part! to ter#inate if one fails to co#pl! with their respective obligations* )icrosoft Corp* ter#inated the agree#ent for non> pa!#ent of ro!alties upon learning that Beltron was illegall! cop!ing and selling )icrosoft software* )icrosoft Corp* secured search warrants leading to the search of Beltron?s pre#ises which resulted in the sei ure of counterfeit )icrosoft software* )icrosoft filed a co#plaint for cop!right infringe#ent and unfair co#petition with the $epart#ent of @ustice* The $.@ dis#issed the co#plaint* The (ecretar! ruled that the issue of the authorit! of Beltron to cop! and sell )icrosoft products should first be resolved in a civil suit* )icrosoft appealed the decision of the $.@ secretar! before the (upre#e Court* )eanwhile" Beltron filed a #otion to 6uash the search warrant before the RTC* The RTC partiall! granted the 6uashal* The Court of +ppeals reversed the RTC*
"SS#E

7hether the C+ erred in finding that the trial court did not gravel! abuse its discretion in declaring in the hearing for the 6uashal of the search warrant that the cop!righted products of )+N,- are not original creations sub8ect to the protection of R+ 4153*
HE$D

The power to issue search warrants co#es with the power to 6uash the sa#e if it finds upon reevaluation of evidence that no probable cause e9ists* :pon trial courts reevaluation" products do not appear to be original creations of )+N,- and are not a#ong the classes of wor; enu#erated under (ection /01 of R+ 4153* The trial court properl! 6uashed the search warrant it earlier issued after finding upon reevaluation of the evidence that no probable cause e9ists to 8ustif! its issuance in the first place* +s ruled b! the trial court" the cop!righted products do not appear to be original creations of )+N,- and are not a#ong the classes of wor; enu#erated under (ection /01 of R+ 4153 <urther" the cop!right certificates b! )+N,constitute #erel! pri#a facie evidence of validit! and ownership* 'owever" when other evidence e9ist that #a! cast doubt on the cop!right validit!" the presu#ption will not e9ist* 'ence" where there is sufficient proof that the cop!righted products are not original creations but are readil! available in the #ar;et under various brands" the presu#ption will not arise and the trial court #a! properl! 6uash the issued warrant for lac; of probable cause. +t #ost" the certificates of registration and deposit issued b! the National ,ibrar! and the (upre#e Court ,ibrar! serve #erel! as a notice of recording and registration of the wor; but do not

7hether the $.@ acted with grave abuse of discretion in not finding probable cause to charge respondents with cop!right infringe#ent and unfair co#petition*
HE$D

The (upre#e Court ruled in favor of )icrosoft Corp* and held that cop!right infringe#ent under the =residential decree 45 (the .ld Cop!right ,aw) is not confined to the unauthori ed A#anufacturingB of intellectual wor;s but covers the unauthori ed perfor#ance of an! of the acts covered b! (ection 25 of the said ,aw (i*e*" cop!ing" distributing" #ultipl!ing and selling)" which acts were done b! Beltron to the pre8udice and da#age of )icrosoft Corp* 'ence" an! person who perfor#s an! of the acts under (ection 5 without obtaining the cop!right owner?s prior consent renders hi#self civill! and cri#inall! liable for cop!right infringe#ent* Infringe#ent of a cop!right is a trespass on a private do#ain owned and occupied b! the owner of the cop!right" and" therefore" protected b! law" and infringe#ent of cop!right" or pirac!" which is a s!non!#ous ter# in this connection" consists in the doing b! an! person" without the consent of the owner of the cop!right" of an!thing the sole right to do which is conferred b! statute on the owner of the cop!right* )oreover" the (C held that the counterfeit cd>ro#s fro# Beltron supports a finding of probable cause for unfair co#petition considering that the pac;aging of these products could not be distinguished fro# those of authentic )icrosoft software* (uch replication" together with the si#ilarit!

Intellectual Property Digest:

JOHN MARK A. CAMALON

2014

in the content of the counterfeit cd>ro#s" i#plies an intent to deceive the public* !AC"TA ". HA&A%A) A$"C"A $. C"%C3 and (34"TA %. FE+%A%D3 vs. FE$"C"DAD C. +3&$ES and *33D5"$$ T+AD"%* C3.) "%C. *.+. %o. ,0,211) (uly ,6) ,666

FACTS
=acita 'abana et al*" are authors and cop!right owners of dul! issued of the boo;" College %nglish <or Toda! (C%T)* Respondent <elicidad Robles was the author of the boo; $eveloping %nglish =roficienc! ($%=)* =etitioners found that several pages of the respondentCs boo; are si#ilar" if not all together a cop! of petitionersC boo;* 'abana et al* filed an action for da#ages and in8unction" alleging respondent?s infringe#ent of cop!rights" in violation of =*$* 45* The! allege respondent <elicidad C* Robles being substantiall! fa#iliar with the contents of petitionersC wor;s" and without securing their per#ission" lifted" copied" plagiari ed and&or transposed certain portions of their boo; C%T* .n the other hand" Robles contends that the boo; $%= is the product of her own intellectual creation" and was not a cop! of an! e9isting valid cop!righted boo; and that the si#ilarities #a! be due to the authorsC e9ercise of the Dright to fair use of cop!righted #aterials" as guides*D The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents" absolving the# of an! liabilit!* ,ater" the Court of +ppeals rendered 8udg#ent in favor of respondents Robles and Eoodwill Trading Co*" Inc* In this appeal" petitioners sub#it that the appellate court erred in affir#ing the trial courtCs decision* "SS#E 7hether Robles co##itted infringe#ent in the production of $%=* HE$D + perusal of the records !ields several pages of the boo; $%= that are si#ilar if not identical with the te9t of C%T* The court finds that respondent RoblesC act of lifting fro# the boo; of petitioners substantial portions of discussions and e9a#ples" and her failure to ac;nowledge the sa#e in her boo; is an infringe#ent of petitionersC cop!rights* In the case at bar" the least that respondent Robles could have done was to ac;nowledge petitioners 'abana et* al* as the source of the portions of $%=* The final product of an authorCs toil is her boo;* To allow another to cop! the boo; without appropriate ac;nowledg#ent is in8ur! enough*