JOAQUIN, JR., petitioners, vs. DRILON,respondents. CASE: This is a petition for certiorari.

Petitioners seek to annul the resolution of the Department of Justice, denying petitioner Joaquins motion for reconsideration. FACTS: Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder/grantee of Certificate of Copyright 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 shows format and style of presentation. On July 14, 1991, while watching television, petitioner president of BJPI, saw on RPN Channel 9 an episode of Its a Date, which was produced by IXL Productions, Inc. (IXL). After writing 2 letters demanding and warning to private respondent Gabriel M. Zosa, president and general manager of IXL, informing the latter that BJPI had a copyright to Rhoda and Me and demanding that IXL discontinue airing Its a Date and its refusal to discontinue airing the show, petitioner filed a complaint for violation of P.D. No. 49 was filed against private respondent together with certain officers of RPN Channel 9 in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City 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 Prosecutors findings and directed him to move for the dismissal of the case against private respondents. Petitioner Joaquin filed a motion for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by respondent Secretary of Justice on December 3, 1992. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the format or mechanics of a show is entitled to copyright protection. HELD: [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. This provision is substantially the same as 172 of the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293). 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. 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. What then is the subject matter of petitioners copyright? This Court is of the opinion that petitioner BJPIs 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 BJPIs 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.

MANLY SPORTWEAR MANUFACTURING, INC., Petitioner, vs DADODETTE ENTERPRISES AND/OR HERMES SPORTS CENTER, CASE: This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure assails the decision of the Court of Appeals and its resolution[4] denying reconsideration thereof. FACTS: Special Investigator Eliezer P. Salcedo of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) applied for a search warrant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, based on the information that Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center were in possession of goods, the copyright of which belonged to Manly Sportswear Mfg., Inc. (MANLY) . After finding reasonable grounds that a violation of Sections 172 and 217 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8293[6] has been committed, a Search was issued. Respondents thereafter moved to quash and annul the search warrant contending that the same is invalid since the requisites for its issuance have not been complied with. They insisted that the sporting goods manufactured by and/or registered in the name of MANLY are ordinary and common hence, not among the classes of work protected under Section 172 of RA 8293. Trial court granted the motion to quash and declared Search Warrant null and void based on its finding that the copyrighted products of MANLY do not appear to be original creations and were being manufactured and distributed by different companies locally and abroad under various brands, and therefore unqualified for protection under Section 172 of RA 8293. Moreover, MANLYs certificates of registrations were issued only in 2002, whereas there were certificates of registrations for the same sports articles which were issued earlier than MANLYs, thus further negating the claim that its copyrighted products were original creations. MANLY filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Hence it filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals which was also denied for lack of merit A motion for reconsideration was also denied. Thus, MANLY filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. ISSUE: whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in declaring in the hearing for the quashal of the search warrant that the copyrighted products of MANLY are not original creations subject to the protection of RA 8293. RULING: We deny the petition. In the instant case, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it entertained the motion to quash considering that no criminal action has yet been instituted when it was filed. The trial court also properly quashed the search warrant it earlier issued after finding upon reevaluation of the evidence that no probable cause exists to justify its issuance in the first place. As ruled by the trial court, the copyrighted products do not appear to be original creations of MANLY and are not among the classes of work enumerated under Section 172 of RA 8293. At most, the certificates of registration and deposit issued by the National Library and the Supreme Court Library serve merely as a notice of recording and registration of the work but 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 a 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 a fine.[18] WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

CHING, petitioner, vs. SALINAS, SR., CASE: This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals affirming the Orders of the (RTC) of Manila, which quashed and set aside Search Warrant granted in favor of petitioner Jessie G. Ching.

FACTS: 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. Later on, 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. 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 RTC granted the application and issued Search Warrant for the seizure of the aforecited articles. The respondents filed a motion to quash the search warrants. They 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. 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. The trial court issued an Order 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 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 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. 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 The petitioners motion for reconsideration of the said decision was also denied. The petitioner forthwith filed the present petition for review on certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC committed a grave abuse of its discretion when it declared that petitioners works are not copyrightable.

RULING: 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. 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. 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.

KHO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CASE: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals setting aside and declaring as null and void the Orders of the RTC of Quezon City granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. FACTS: Petitioner Elidad C. Kho filed a complaint for injunction and damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction 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 ; 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; 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 application of plaintiff Elidad C. Kho. Consequentially, plaintiff is required to file with the Court a bond 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. The respondents moved for reconsideration but was denied. Thus, the respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals praying for the nullification of the said writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court. CA rendered a Decision in favor of the respondents. That the granting the writ of preliminary injunction and denying petitioners motion for reconsideration are set aside and declared null and void. 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.

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 rendered a decision 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 petitioner duly appealed the said decision to the Court of Appeals. However, the Court of Appeals denied the petitioners motions for reconsideration and for contempt of court.Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not respondents should be enjoined from allegedly infringing on the copyrights and patents of the petitioner. HELD: We rule in favor of the respondents. 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. 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. 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. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.