Pearl and Dean vs Shoemart
UNAUTHORIZED DUPLICATION OF OBJECT DRAWN BECAUSE
- Since the light boxes cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be
considered as either prints, pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels,
tags or boz 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
- 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.
- Copyright in the strict senseof 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 condition specified in the statute
- It can cover only the works falling within the statutory enumeration or
description
- The lightbox 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 bythe
simplistic act of entitling the copyright certificate issued by the National
Library as advertising display units.
- In fine, if SMI and NEMI reprinted and D technical drawings for sale to the
public without license from PD then no doubt they would have been guilty
of copyright infringement. But this was not the case. SMI and NEMIs acts
complained of by PD 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. NO
INFIRNGEMENT
Baker vs Selden
- Exclusivity to the actual forms is NOT EXTENDED by a copyright.
- To grant a monopoly in underlying art when no examination of its novelty
has ever been made would be a surprise and a fraud upon public
- The province of letters patent, not of copyright
- No doubt aware that it is alleged original design would never be pass the
rigorous examination of a patent application, plaintiff-appellant fought to
foist a fraudulent monopoly on the public by conveniently resorting to a
copyright registration which merely employees a recordal system without
the benefit of an in depth examination of novelty.
- PROTECTION OF DRAWING DOES NOT EXTEND TO
COPYRIGHT EXTENDS ONLY TO DESCRIPTION OR EXPRESSION
OF OBJECT AND NOT TO OBJECT ITSELF. IT DOES NOT PREVENT
ONE FROM USING THE DRAWINGS TO CONSTRUCT THE OBJECT
PORTRAYED IN THE DRAWING
Imperial Homes vs Lamont
- There is no copyright infringement when one who, without being
authorized, uses a copyrighted architectural plan to construct a structure.
Copyright does not extend to structures themselves
GAME SHOW (Joaquin vs Drilon)
- format of show is NOT copyrightable
- the format or mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of
protected works in PD 4.
- The protection afforded by the law cannot be extended to cover them
- Copyright in the strict sense of term, is purely a statutor
- the format or mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of
protected works in PD 4.
- The protection afforded by the law cannot be extended to cover them
- Copyright in the strict sense of term, is purely a statutory right
- No copyright except that which is both created and secured by act of
Congress
- PD 49 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, concepts, principles,
discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained
illustrated, or embodied in such work.
- The copyright DOES NOT EXTEND to the general concept or format of its
dating game show. 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 not similarity or dissimilarity may be found by merely
describing the general copyright/format of both dating game shows
MUST CARRY RULE (ABS CBN vs Philippine Multi Media)
 - The rebroadcasting does not violate Section 211 of IP Code. There is no
merit in ABS CBNs contention that PMSI violated its broadcasters rights
under Section 211 of IP Code
- PMSI is not engaged in rebroadcasting and thus cannot be considered to
have infringed ABS CBNs broadcasting rights and copyright. Neither is
PMSI guilty of infringement of ABS CBNS copyright under Section 177 of
IP Code
- Must carry rule is a limitation of copyright. It must be emphasized that the
law on copyright is not absolute
- The imposition of the must carry rule is within the NCs power to
promulgate rules and regulations, as public safety and interest may require,
to encourage a larger and more effective use of communications, radio and
television broadcasting facilities, and to maintain effective competition
among private entities in these activities whenever the commission finds it
reasonably feasible.
Pirated Installers
To constitute infringement, it is not necessary that the whole or even a large portion
of work shall have been copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original is
sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an
injurious extend appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to
constitute piracy
Unfortunate Copying (Habana vs Felicidad Robles and Goodwill)
- Respondents act of lifting from the book petitioners substantial portions of
discussions and examples, and her failure to acknowledge the same in her
book is an infringement of petitioners copyrights
- Measure of substantiality of reproduction. When is there a substantial
reproduction of a book? It does not necessarily require that the entire
copyrighted work, or even a large portion of it, be copied. If so much is
taken that the value of the original work is substantially diminished, there is
an infringement of copyright and to an injurious extent, the work is
appropriated.
- A copy of piracy is an infringement of the original, and it is no defense that
the pirate, in such cases, did not know whether or not he was infringing an
copyright; he at least knew that what was copying was not his, and he
copied at his peril
- Respondents copying is injurious. failure to acknowledge orginal author
produces injurious effect. In cases of infringement, copying alone is not
what is prohibited. The copying must produce an injurious effect. Here the
injury consists in that respondent robles lifted from petitioners book
materials that were the result of the latters research work and compilation
and misrepresented them as her own. She circulated the book DEP for
commercial use and did not acknowledge petitioners as her source
- Pulling out of books from the stores are indica of guilt. We consider as an
indica of guilt or wrongdoing the act of respondent Robles of pulling out
from Goodwill bookstores the book of DEP upon learning of petitioners
complaint while pharisaically denying petitioners demand.
- When the book DEP was re issued as a revised version, all pages cited by
petitioners to contain portion of their book College English for today were
eliminated
- Gravamen of copyright infringement is the unaturhozed performance of any
acts covered by Section 5 PD 49. PD 49 enumerates the rights vested
exclusively on the copyright owner. Contrary to the DOJs ruling, the
gravamen of copyright infringement is not merely the unauthorized
manufacturing of intellectual works but rather the unauthorized
performance of any of the acts covered by Section 5.
- Any person who performs any under Section 5 without obtaining the
copyright owners prior renders himself civilly and criminally liable for
copyright infringement
- Columbia Pics vs CA : infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private
domain owned and occupied by the owner of the copyright, and therefore
protected by law, and infringement of copyright of piracy which is a
synonymous term in this connection, consists in the doing by any person,
without the consent of the owner of the copyright, of anything the sole right
to do which is conferred by statute on the owner of copyright
- Evidence sufficient to support finding probable cause.
1. 12 CD ROMS containing Microsoft software sacriz and samiano
bought from respondents
2. The cpu with pre installed Microsoft software sacriz and Samiano also
purchased from respondents
3. The 2831 cd roms containing Microsoft software seized from
respondents
 - The DOJ, on the one hand, refused topass upon the relevance of these
pieces of evidence

1. Obligations between the parties in civil and not criminal considering

that Microsoft merely sought the issuance of SW
2. Validity of microsofts termination of agreement must first be resolved
by proper court

ON other hand, DOJ ruled that Microsoft failed to present evidence proving that
what were obtained from respondents were counterfeit Microsfot products

READ MORE THIS CASE PAGE 320

Unregistered Copyright (Sportwear Manufacturing Inc vs Dadodette Enterprises)

- No copyright accrues in favour of MANLY despite issuance of the

certificate. Further copyright certificates issued in favour of MANLY
constitute merelyprima facie evidence of validity and ownership.
- NO PRESUMPTION of validity is created where other evidence exist that
may cast doubt on the copyright validity.
- Where there is sufficient proof that the copyrighted products are not original
creations but are readily available in the market under various brands, as in
this case, validityand originality will not be presumed and TC may properly
quash the issued warrant for lack of probable cause
- Besides, NO COPYRIGHT accrues in favour of MANLY despite issuance
of certificates of registration and deposit pursuant to section 2 rule 7 of
copyrights safeguards and regulations
- Certificates of registration and deposit issued by the National Libarary and
SC library serve merely as a notice of recording and registration of the work
by do not confer any right or title upon the registered copyright owner or
automatically put his work under the protective mantle of the copyright law.
- IT is not conclusive proof of copyright ownership. As it is, non registration
and deposit of the work within the prescribed period only makes the
copyright owner liable to pay fine.

LAW ON TRADEMARK
Birkernstock vs Philippine Shoe Expo
- Respondent is deemed to have abandoned the mark. In this case, respondent
admitted that it failed to file the 10th year DAU for registration no. 56334
within the requisite period, oron or before October 21,2004
- As a consequence it was deemed to have abandoned or withdrawn any right
or interest over the makr Birkenstock
- Neither can it incoke section 236 of IP Code which pertains to intellectual
property righs obtained under previous intellectual property laws
- Petitioner has duly established its true and lawful ownership of the mark.
Besides, petitioner has duly established its true and lawful ownership of
mark Birkenstock
- It is not the applicationor registration of trademark that vests ownership
thereof but it is the ownership of a trademark that confers the rightro
register the same.
- A trademark is an industrial property over which its owner is entitled to
property rights which cannot be appropriated by unscrupulous entities that,
in one way or another, happen to register such trademark ahead of its true
and lawful owner.
- Presumption of ownership accorded to a registrant must then necessarily
yield to suprios evidence of actual and real ownership of a trademark
Goodwill Hunting (Fredco Manufacturing Corp vs President Harvard college)
- The mark Harvard veritas shield symbol is now deemed under ra 8293
- There is no dispute that the mark Harvard usedby freco is the same as the
mark Harvard in the Harvard veritas shield symbol of Harvard university.
- It is also not disputed that Harvard university was anmed Harvard college in
1639 and that then, as now Harvard university is located in Cambridge.
- Harvard university is entitled to protection in the Philippines of its trade
name Harvard even without registration of such trade name in the
Philippines under Article 8 of Paris convention as well as section 37. The
Philippines and the US of America are both signatories to the Paris
convention for the protection of industrial property
- Even without applying the paris convention Harvard university can invoke
section 4 which prohibits the registration of a mark which may disparage of
falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions.
The Durable Ang tibay
Ana ang vs toribio teodoro
- Ang tibay is not a descriptive term.
- We find it necessary to go into the etymology and meaning of tagalog
words and tibay to determine whether they are a descriptive term
- Whether they relate the quality or description of the merchandise to which
respondent has applied them as a trademark
- The word and is a definite article meaning the in English
- Ang tibay as used by respondent to designate his wares, had exactly
performed that function for 22 years before petitioner adopted it as a
trademark in her own business
- Toribios products shoes is similar to Angs product, pants and shirts.
- The mere relation or association of articles is NOT CONTROLLING.
Yummy Big Mac Mcdo vs LC Big Mak Burger
- Big mac mark is valid as well as mcdonalds ownership over it. A mark is
valid if it is distinctive and thus not barred from registration under secion 4
of ra 166. However, once registered, not only the marksvalidity but also the
registrants ownership of the mark is prima facie presumed.
- Respondents use of Big Mak causes confusion. Petitioners claim that
respondents use of big mak mark on respondents hamburgers results in
confusion of goods, particularly with respect to petitioners habmburgers
labelled big mac
- Modern law recognizes that the protection to which the owner of a
trademark is entitled is not limited to guadng his goods or business from
actual market competition with identical or similar products of the parties,
but extends to all cases in which the use by ajunior appropriator of a
trademark or trade name is likely to lead to a confusion of source, as where
prospective purchasers would be misled into thinking that the complaining
party has extended his business into the field or is in anyway connected
with activities of infringer; or when it forestalls the normal potential
expansion of his business.
One more please Mcdo vs MacJoy Fastfood
- There is confucing similarity between the trademarks mcdo marks and
macjoy and device . applying the dominancy test to the instant case.
- Both marks use the corporate M design logo and the prefizes Mc and or
MAC asdominant features. First letter M in both marks puts emphasis on
the prefixes mc and mac by similar way in which they are depicted.
- Noted variations in marks are inconsequential. The differences and variation
in styles as device depicting a head of chicken with cap and bowtie and
wings sprouting on both sides of chicken head, the heart shaped and stylistic
letters in macjoy and device.
Skechers vs Interpacific industrial
- The respondent is guilty of trademark infringement applying dominancy
test.
- The use of the stylized s by respondent in its strong rubber shoes infringes
on the mark already registered by the petitioner with IPO. While it is
undiscputed that eptitiones stlzed S is whithin the ova; design
- The dominant feature of the trademark is stylized S as it precisely the
stylized S which catches the eye of purchaser.
- Respondents shoes may not be an exact replica of peitioners shoes but
thefeatures and oversall design are so similar and alike that confusion is
highly likely.
- While there may be dissimilarities between the apperances of shoes, to this
courts mind such similarities do not outweigh the stark and blatant
similarities in their general features.
- Neither can thedifference in price be a complete defense in trademark
infringement.
- Modern law recognizes that the protection to which the owner of a
trademark is entitled it not limited to guarding his goods or business from
actual market competition with identical or similar products of parties, but
extends to all cases in which the use by a junior appropriator of a trademark
or tradename is likely to lead to a confusion of a source as where
prospective purchasers would be misled into thinking that the complaining
party has extended his business intot he field or is in anyway connected
with the activities of infringer or when it forestalls the normal potential
expansion of his business
- Protection of trademarks is intended not only to preserve the goodwill and
reputation of trademark owner but also to safeguard the public as consmers
against confusion on these goods.
Beer is not confusing (Asia brewery vs CA)
- There is absolutely no similarity in the dominant features of both
trademarks. Infringement is determined by test of dominancy rather than by
differences or variations in details of one trademark and of another.
- Resemblance between the two trademarks such as would be likely to cause
the one mark to be mistaken for the other but this is not such similitude as
amounts to identity.
If it sounds alike (Prosoruce International vs Horphag Research Management)
- When two words are pronounce, the sound effects are confusingly similar.
The TC applied dominancy test in determining whether there was a
confusing similarity between the marks pycnogenol and PCO genols.
- Both words have same sffix which on evidence appears to be merely
descriptive and furnish no indication of orgin of article and hence, open for
trademark registration by plaintiff thru combination with another word
- Although letters Y between P and C N : between O and C and S after L are
missing in pettitioners amrk nevertheless when two words are pronounced,
the sound effects are confusingly similar not to mention that they are both
described by their manufacturers as a food supplement and thus, identified
as such by their public consumers
- Although there were dissimalrities in the trademark due to the type of letters
used as well as sie, color and design employed on their individual
packages.bottles, still the close relationshipof competing products name in
sounds they were pronounced, clearly indicates that puchasers could be
misled into believing that they are same and or originates from a common
source and manufacturer
Sunshine is NOT delmonte (Delmonte vs CA)
- Side by side comparison is not the final test of similarity. While the court
does recognize these distinction, ti does not agree with conclusion that there
was no infringement or unfair competition. It seems to us that the lower
courts have been so preoccupied with details that they have not seen total
picture
- Side by side comparison is NOT THE FINAL TEST OF SIMILARITY
- The question is whetgher a casual purchase is confused.
- The questions is whether a casual purchaser is confused. The questions is
not whether the two articles are distinguihshable by their label when set
 aside by side by side but whether the general confusion made by article -
upon the eye of casual purchaser who is unconspicious and off his guard, is
such as to likely result in his confounding it with original.
- In making purchasers, the consumer must depent upon his recollection of
appearance of the product which he intends to purchase. The buyer having
in mind mark or label of respondent must rely upon his memory
- Factors to consider by courts; primary is the cost of goods. Respondent
court failed to take into cosndieration several factors which should have
affected its conclusion, to wit: age, training and education of usual
purchaser, nature and cost of article.
- When sunshine chose to use same colors and letters as those used y del
monte without reasonable exaplanation, the inevitable conclusion is that it
was done deliberately to deceive. The predominant colors used in del monte
label are green and red orange, the same with sunshine. The word catsup in
both bottles is printed in white and style of print or letter is same.
Still approx. of tomato

Eve is not loom (Fruit of loom vs CA)

- Comparison of the words is not the only determinant factor. The trademarks
in their entirety as they appear in their respective labels or hang tags must
also be considered in relation to the goods to which they are attached.
- In cases involving infringement of trademark brought before this court it
has been consistenyl held that there is infringement of trademark when the
use of mark involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistake in mind
of public or to deceive purchasers as to the origin or source of commodity
- There are markes dissimilarities. In trademarks fruit of loom and fruit of
eve, the lone similar word is fruit. We agree with respondent court that by
mere pronouncing the two marks, it could hardly be said that it will provoke
confusion, as to mistake one for other.
- The similarities of competing tradenmarks in this case are completely lost in
substantial differences in the design and eneral appearance of their
respective hang tags.
- We have examined the two trademarks as they appear in hang tags
submitted by parties and we are impressed more by dissimilarities than by
the similarities appearing therein.
- Fruit of the loom and fruit of eve do not resemble each other as to confuse
or deceive an ordinary purchaser.
- The ordinary purchaser must be thought of as having and credited with at
least a modicum of intelligence.

Not once but twice tested (Agricultural vs Abyadang)