COURSE SYLLABUS FOR INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY LAW (JD ELECTIVE)

CONTENT ACTIVITIES TIME FRAME EVALUATION ASSIGNMENT

PRELIM PERIOD
I. Basic Intellectual Property Information Reference Book - Essentials of Intellectual Property Law
by Ernesto C. Salao (A guidebook on RA 8293 and other Related Laws
> What is IP ? WIPO Definition Republic Act 8293 or the IP Code of the Philippines (3rd edition) 2016
Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind: Reference websites : www.wipo.int ; www.ipophil.gov.ph
inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, KISS Guide in Intellectual Property
images, and designs used in commerce.
Compare IP from movable and immovable property

A Glimpse at Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights Illustrative Cases re different kinds of IP

A combination of the follow
- ing activities shall be
> Pertinent Constitutional Provisions done for each of the
I. TheBenefit to the People Proviso Art. XIV,Sec.13 particular content items
II. Art. XIV- Secs 10 and 12 whenever applicable and
III. Art. XII, Sec 6 vis a vis Sec. 2 of the IP Code and deemed more
IV. Art XII, Secs. 14 and 19 effective :
> Civil Law Basis - Arts. 712; 721;722; 724 a)Graded recitation
> Historical Background
> IP and Economics b) Class discussion with
an assigned discussant
II. Classes of Intellectual Property (2 Main Divs) c) Recap of the topic
III. Statutory Definition of IPR under the IP Code taken up
Sec. 4.1 of the IP Code
IV. International Conventions to which the
Philippines is a signatory d) Case studies analysis
IV. Notable Changes in the IP Code (RA 10372)
V. Taking a Look at the IP Office and its e) Group activity either
jurisdiction reporting, role playing or
panel discussion
f) Submission of case
digest
To be taken up A combination of the (no unfair competition in copyright)
within the first following evaluation 1. Pearl & Dean vs. Shoemart Inc, GR No. 148222, Aug 15, 2003
two meetings techniques shall be 2. Kho vs. CA, GR No. 115758, Mar. 19, 2002
for item no. I. adopted for the different 3. Air Philippines Corporation v.Pennswell, Inc.
ist week content items whenever G.R. No. 172835, December 13, 2007
applicable and deemed > Constitution Secs XII and XIV
more effective :
> Sec. 2 of IP Code
a) Oral Recitation
IP Code Sections 2,3 and 4
b) Quizzes or short pages 1-56
exercises
2nd week for See WIPO website and ipophil.gov.ph
the first 4 cases c) Long exams
d) Submission of Functions and Jurisdiction of IPO
written reports
4. Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs.
e) Case digest Fertilizer and Pesticides Authority, Secretary of DA,
G.R. NO. 156041 , February 21, 2007
f) Group reporting

CONTENT ACTIVITIES TIME FRAME EVALUATION ASSIGNMENT

Page 1
 Included in Pages 273-344 of Salao's Book
V. Law on Copyright the Prelim 12 cases per Copyright being a statutory right
5.1 Historical Background Exams meeting Secs. 171-229 of the IP Code (Cases for 5.1 to 5.4)
5.2 What is copyright? 5. Joaquin v. Drilon G.R No. 108946, 28 Jan 1999)
5.3 When does copyright vest and when is a work 6. Ching v. Salinas, GRN. 161295, June 29, 2005
created? (Principle of Automatic Protection) 7. United Feature Syndicate Inc., vs. Munsingwear Manufacturing
Originality; Independent Creation;no direct copying Company, G.R. No. 76193 November 9, 1989
5.4 Definitions (Sec. 171)
5.5 What are Copyrightable ? (Scope of Copyright) Cases Assigned for 5.1 to 5.4
o Literary and Artistic Works (Sec. 172) 8. Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone 499 US 340 (1991)
o Derivative Works Secs. 173-174 9. Manly Sportwear Manufacturing vs. Dadodette
DENICOLA TEST (conceptual separability) GR.N. 165306, September 20, 2005
5.6 Unprotected works- Secs. 175-176 10. Ong Ching Kian Chuan vs. CA, Lorenzo Tan,G.R. No. 130360
5.7 Deposit and notice Sections 191, 192, 227 229 August 15, 2001
11. Santos vs.McCullough PrintingG.R. No. L-19439,October 31, 1964
5.8 Ownership of Copyright - Secs. 180-183 12. Brandir Int'l Inc., vs. Cascade Pacific Lumber Company,
5.9 Economic rights - Section 177 844 F 2D. 1142, U.S CA Second Circuit, Dec. 2, 1987
5.10 Limitations on Copyright Cases for 5.5 to 5.12
5.11 Term of Copyright 13. Lotus v. Borland US Court of Appeals No. 93-2214
5.12 Related Rights Secs 193-211 14. Triad Systems vs.Southeastern Express Co USC, 8th Circuit
i. Moral Rights August 31, 1995
ii. Follow Up Rights 15. Los Angeles News Service vs. Frank Tullo, 973F. 2D 791
iii. Neighboring Rights 16. Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music, - US Court of Appeals for
the 6th Circuit, March 7, 1994
5.13 Infringement and Remedies - Secs 216-226 17. Bayanihan Music vs. BMG, Jose Mari Chan,
Differentiate Plagiarism and Infringement GR No. 166337, March 7, 2005
5.14 Evidentiary Considerations 18. Filscap v. Tan ( 148 SCRA 461, 16 March 1987)
5.15 Copyright contrasted w/ other Industrial Property 19. ABS CBN Corp vs. Gozon, Duavit, et.al, G.R. No. 195956
5.16 Final Provisions March 11, 2015
20. Habana vs. Robles,GRN 131522, July 19, 1999

CONTENT ACTIVITIES TIME FRAME EVALUATION ASSIGNMENT

Cases for 5.13 -5.14
Law on Copyright NBI-Microsoft Corp. vs. Hwang GR No. 147043, June 21, 2005
Microsoft Corp.vs. Maxicorp Inc.,GR No. 140946, Sept. 3, 2004
20th Century Fox Film Corp v. CA , L-76649-51, Aug 19, 1988
Columbia Pictures Inc. vs. CA, 237 SCRA 367 (1994)
Columbia Pictures Inc. vs. CA, GR No. 110318, Aug 28, 1996

Cases for 5.15

Pearl & Dean vs. Shoemart Inc, GR No. 148222, Aug 15, 2003
Kho vs. CA, GR No. 115758, Mar. 19, 2002
VI. Law on Trademarks MIDTERMS Secs. 121-170 of the IP Code
Pages 123-221 of Salao's book

Page 2
6.1 Definitions - Sec. 121, R.A 8293 Same activities as Section 21, RA 8239 or the IP Code
6.2 Functions of a Mark aforementioned Cases for 6.2 - 6.7
Ang Tibay v. Teodoro (74 Phil 50)
6.3 Concept of Origin Philip Morris, Inc. v. CA (224 SCRA 624, Dissenting Opinion
6.4 How Rights to a Mark are Acquired Mirpuri vs. CA
a) under Sec. 2 of RA 166 Victorias Milling Co. vs. Ong Su (79 SCRA 207)
b) under Sec. 122 of RA 8293 Unno Commercial vs. Gen Milling Corp, 205 Phils.707
6.5 Who prevails: prior user under RA 166 or registrant
under RA 8293 Philip Morris, Inc. v. CA (274 SCRA 576)
6.6 Container Mark (RA 623) Shangrila Hotels vs. DGCI, GR No. 159938, March 31, 2006
6.7 Trade/Business Name Asia Brewery vs. CA, GR No. 103543, 5 July 1993
6.8 Registrability - Section 123
6.9 Misleading as to geographical origin
6.10 Indicative of quality of geographical origin Cases for 6.8-6.9
6.11 Identical mark with respect to Sterling Products vs. Faber Farbenfabriken AG 27 SCRA 1214
a) same goods
b) dissimilar goods Asia Brewery v. CA (ibid, dissenting opinion)
c) closely related goods Cases for 6.11 a)
Pag-asa Industrial Corp. vs. CA, 118 SCRA 526
NICE CLASSIFICATION Mc Donald's Corp. vs. LC Big Mak Burger, GR No. 243993,
August 18, 2004

CONTENT ACTIVITIES TIME FRAME EVALUATION ASSIGNMENT

Cases for 6.11a
6.12 Internationally well-known mark Sec 123.1 (e) Mc Donald's Corp. vs. MacJoy Fastfood Corp,GR No 16615
Art. 6bis of the Paris Convention February 2, 2007
o same goods - La Chemise Lacoste; Mirpuri v. CA Cases for 6.11b)
o dissimilar goods Ang v. Teodoro (74 Phil 50)
Sta. Ana vs. Maliwat ([G.R. No. L-23023. August 31, 1968.]
6.13 Sec. 20 of RA 166 vs. Sec. 138 of the IP Code Phil. Refining Co. vs. Ng Sam[G.R.No. L-26676.July 30, 1982.]
Mighty Corp. vs. E.J Gallo Winery [G.R. No. 154342
6.14 Application for Registration -Secs. 124 to 143 July 14, 2004
(take note of Sec. 124.2)
- Maintenance/Renewal of registration(Sec. 146) Cases for 6.10c
- Excusable non-use (Sec. 152) Ang v. Teodoro, ibid
- Rights conferred (Sec. 147-150) Puma Sportschufabriken v. CA (G.R. No.75067, 26 Feb 1998)

6.15 Cancellation Sections 151-154 Cases for 6.11

6.16 License Contracts Section 150 La Chemise Lacoste vs. Hernandez, [G.R. Nos. L-63796-97.
6.17 Trademark Infringement Secs. 155-164,166 May 21, 1984
- Tests to determine Infringement (dominancy Kabushi Kaisha Isetan v. IAC, [G.R. No. 75420. Nov 15, 1991.]
test and holistic test)
- Trademark Dilution Esso Standard v. CA [G.R. No. L-29971. August 31, 1982.]
6.18 Unfair Competition
6.19 Trade/Business Name Cases for 6.17 to 6.20
6.2 Issues in Jurisdiction 1. Mighty Corp. vs. E.J Gallo Winery [G.R. No. 154342 July 14, 2004]
2 Mc Donald cases
Societe Des Produits Nestles v. CA, 356 SCRA 207, 2001)

Page 3
 Levi Strauss vs. Clinton Aparelle,GR No. 138900,Sept 20,2005
Samson vs. Daway, GR Nos. 160054-55, 21 July 2004

CONTENT ACTIVITIES TIME FRAME EVALUATION ASSIGNMENT

VII. LAW ON PATENTS Semi Finals Ses. 21 -84 of the IP Code

Purpose of the Patent System

Standards for Patentability Cases for item VII
Right to a Patent Manzano vs. CA G.R.No.113388.Sept 5, 1997
Application for a Patent Aguas vs. de Leon, 111 SCRA 238 ,1982
Cancellation Maguan vs. CA, 146 SCRA 107 , 1986
Rights of Patentee Godines vs. CA, GR No. 97343, Sept. 13, 1993
Utility Model Schuartz vs. CA, GR No. 113407, July 12, 2000
Registrability Creser Precision System vs.CA, GR No. 118708,Feb. 2, 1998
Rights of Holder G. Sell v. Yap Jue, 12 Phil 519, 1909
Industrial Design Smith Kline v. CA, 409 SCRA 33 (2003)
Infringement: Literal and Eqwuivalent
Who can file Infringement Cases
Pages 286-312 of the IP Code
VIII. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES IN IP CASES A.M No. 02-1-06-SC Rule on Search and Seizure in Civil Actions for
Writ of Search and Seizure Infringement of IPR (took effect on Feb. 15, 2002)
Grounds for Issuance of Writ of Search and Seizure People et.al vs. Choi, GR No. 152950, Aug. 3, 2006
Bonds and Counterbond Solid Triangle Sales Corp.vs. Sheriff, 422 Phils. 72,83, 2001
Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. vs. Bright Tech
IX OTHER TOPICS G.R. No. 169156, February 15, 2007
Domain Name
Trade Secrets/Franchising and Voluntary Licensing
Emerging trends in IP
- Digital Copyright
-Traditional Knowledge

Page 4