COPYRIGHT

 &  INTELLECTUAL  PROPERTY  LAWS   The   use   of   intellectual   property   bears   a   social   function.   To  
  this  end,  the  State  shall  promote  the  diffusion  of  knowledge  
INTRODUCTION   and   information   for   the   promotion   of   national   development  
  and  progress  and  the  common  good.  
1. BASIS   OF   THE   INTELLECTUAL   PROPERTY   LAW:   RA   8293,   AS    
AMENDED   4. PHILIPPINE  COMMITMENT  TO  THE  GATT-­‐TRIPS  AGREEMENT  
   
Section  2.  Declaration  of  State  Policy.  -­‐  The  State  recognizes   Section   3.   International   Conventions   and   Reciprocity.   -­‐   Any  
that   an   effective   intellectual   and   industrial   property   system   is   person  who  is  a  national  or  who  is  domiciled  or  has  a  real  and  
vital   to   the   development   of   domestic   and   creative   activity,   effective  industrial  establishment  in  a  country  which  is  a  party  
facilitates   transfer   of   technology,   attracts   foreign   to   any   convention,   treaty   or   agreement   relating   to  
investments,   and   ensures   market   access   for   our   products.   It   intellectual   property   rights   or   the   repression   of   unfair  
shall   protect   and   secure   the   exclusive   rights   of   scientists,   competition,   to   which   the   Philippines   is   also   a   party,   or  
inventors,  artists  and  other  gifted  citizens  to  their  intellectual   extends  reciprocal  rights  to  nationals  of  the  Philippines  by  law,  
property   and   creations,   particularly   when   beneficial   to   the   shall   be   entitled   to   benefits   to   the   extent   necessary   to   give  
people,  for  such  periods  as  provided  in  this  Act.     effect  to  any  provision  of  such  convention,  treaty  or  reciprocal  
  law,   in   addition   to   the   rights   to   which   any   owner   of   an  
It  is  also  the  policy  of  the  State  to  streamline  administrative   intellectual  property  right  is  otherwise  entitled  by  this  Act.  (n)  
procedures  of  registering  patents,  trademarks  and  copyright,    
to   liberalize   the   registration   on   the   transfer   of   technology,   General   Agreement   on   Tariffs   and   Trade   (GATT)   was   a  
and   to   enhance   the   enforcement   of   intellectual   property   collection   of   treaties   governing   access   to   the   economies   of  
rights  in  the  Philippines.  (n)   treaty  adherents  with  no   institutionalized   body   administering  
  the   agreements   or   dependable   system   of   dispute   settlement.  
RA  8293:   An   Act   Prescribing   the   Intellectual   Property   (Tañada  vs.  Angara)  
Code   and   Establishing   the   Intellectual   Property    
Office,   Providing   for   its   powers   and   functions,   Tañada  vs  Angara  GR  No.  118295,  May  2,  1997  
and  for  Other  Purposes   Facts:    
  Otherwise   known   as   the:   Intellectual   Property   Petitioners   Senators   Tañada,   et   al.   questioned   the  
Code  of  the  Philippines   constitutionality  of  the  concurrence  by  the  Philippine  Senate  
  of  the  President’s  ratification  of  the  international  Agreement  
2. AMENDMENTS  TO  RA  8293,  AS  AMENDED   establishing   the   World   Trade   Organization   (WTO).   They  
  argued   that   the   WTO   Agreement   violates   the   mandate   of   the  
Ø RA  9150  (2001):    An  Act  Providing  for  the  Protection  of   1987  Constitution  to  “develop  a  self-­‐reliant  and  independent  
Layout-­‐Designs   (Topographies)   of   Integrated   Circuits,   national   economy   effectively   controlled   by   Filipinos   .   .   .   (to)  
Amending   for   the   purpose   of   certain   sections   of   RA   give   preference   to   qualified   Filipinos   (and   to)   promote   the  
8293   preferential   use   of   Filipino   labor,   domestic   materials   and  
Amendment:   Sec.   112,   113,   114,   116,   117,   118,   119   locally   produced   goods.”   Further,   they   contended   that   the  
and   120   under   Chapter   XIII   of   RA   8293:   Industrial   “national   treatment”   and   “parity   provisions”   of   the   WTO  
Design   and   Layout   Designs   (Topographies)   of   Agreement   “place   nationals   and   products   of   member  
Integrated  Circuits   countries   on   the   same   footing   as   Filipinos   and   local   products,”  
  in   contravention   of   the   “Filipino   First”   policy   of   our  
Ø RA   9502   (2008):   An   Act   Providing   for   Cheaper   and   Constitution,  and  render  meaningless  the  phrase  “effectively  
Quality   Medicines,   amending   for   the   purpose   of   RA   controlled  by  Filipinos.”  
8293   or   The   Intellectual   Property   Code,   RA   6675   or   the    
Generics   Act   of   1988,   and   RA   5921   or   the   Pharmacy   Issue:    
Law,  and  for  other  Purposes   Does   the   1987   Constitution   prohibit   our   country   from  
Amendment:  Sec  22,  26,  72,  76,  93,  94,  95,  147,  159:   participating   in   worldwide   trade   liberalization   and   economic  
Sec.  22:  Non-­‐Patentable  Inventions   globalization  and  from  integrating  into  a  global  economy  that  
Sec.  26:  Inventive  Step   is  liberalized,  deregulated  and  privatized?  
Sec.  72:  Limitations  of  Patent  Rights    
Sec.  76:  Civil  Action  for  Infringement   Held:    
Sec.  93:  Grounds  for  Compulsory  Licensing.  –   The   Court   DISMISSED   the   petition.   It   sustained   the  
Sec.   93-­‐A:   Procedures   on   Issuance   of   a   Special   concurrence   of   the   Philippine   Senate   of   the   President’s  
Compulsory  License  under  the  TRIPS  Agreement   ratification  of  the  Agreement  establishing  the  WTO.  
Sec.   94:   Period   for   Filing   a   Petition   for   a   Compulsory    
License   NO,   the   1987   Constitution   DOES   NOT   prohibit   our   country  
Sec.   95:   Requirement   to   Obtain   a   License   on   from   participating   in   worldwide   trade   liberalization   and  
Reasonable  Commercial  Terms   economic   globalization   and   from   integrating   into   a   global  
Sec.  147  Rights  Conferred   economy  that  is  liberalized,  deregulated  and  privatized.  
Sec.  159  Limitations  to  Actions  for  Infringement    
  There  are  enough  balancing  provisions  in  the  Constitution  to  
Ø RA   10372   (2013):   An   Act   Amending   Certain   Provisions   allow   the   Senate   to   ratify   the   Philippine   concurrence   in   the  
of  RA  8293   WTO  Agreement.  
Amendment:    The  Organizational  Structure  of  the  IPO    
  While   the   Constitution   indeed   mandates   a   bias   in   favor   of  
Ø Additional  Legislation  relating  to  IP  Rights:     Filipino   goods,   services,   labor   and   enterprises,   at   the   same  
RA   10055   (2010):   An   Act   Providing   the   Framework   and   time,   it   recognizes   the   need   for   business   exchange   with   the  
Support   System   for   the   Ownership,   Management,   Use,   rest   of   the   world   on   the   bases   of   equality   and   reciprocity   and  
and   Commercialization   of   Intellectual   Property   limits   protection   of   Filipino   enterprises   only   against   foreign  
Generated   from   Research   and   Development   funded   by   competition   and   trade   practices   that   are   unfair.   In   other  
government  and  for  other  purposes   words,   the   Constitution   did   not   intend   to   pursue   an  
Otherwise   known   as:   Philippine   Technology   Transfer   isolationist   policy.   It   did   not   shut   out   foreign   investments,  
Act  of  2009   goods   and   services   in   the   development   of   the   Philippine  
  economy.   While   the   Constitution   does   not   encourage   the  
3. IMPORTANCE   OF   ADOPTING   LAWS   PROTECTING   unlimited   entry   of   foreign   goods,   services   and   investments  
INTELLECTUAL  PROPERTY  RIGHTS   into   the   country,   it   does   not   prohibit   them   either.   In   fact,   it  
  allows   an   exchange   on   the   basis   of   equality   and   reciprocity,  
frowning  only  on  foreign  competition  that  is  unfair.  
   withdrawal   of   membership,   should   this   be   the   political   desire  
The   constitutional   policy   of   a   “self-­‐reliant   and   independent   of  a  member.  
national  economy”  does  not  necessarily  rule  out  the  entry  of    
foreign   investments,   goods   and   services.   It   contemplates   5. DID   RA   8293   REPEAL   EXISTING   LAWS   ON   INTELLECTUAL  
neither   “economic   seclusion”   nor   “mendicancy   in   the   PROPERTY?  
international   community.”   As   explained   by   Constitutional    
Commissioner   Bernardo   Villegas,   sponsor   of   this    
constitutional  policy:   Mipuri  vs.  CA  Gr.  No.  114508,  Nov.  19,  1999  
  Facts:    
Economic  self-­‐reliance  is  a  primary  objective  of  a  developing   In   1970,   Escobar   filed   an   application   with   the   Bureau   of  
country  that  is  keenly  aware  of  overdependence  on  external   Patents   for   the   registration   of   the   trademark   “Barbizon”   for  
assistance   for   even   its   most   basic   needs.   It   does   not   mean   use   in   horsiers   and   ladies   undergarments   (IPC   No.   686).  
autarky   or   economic   seclusion;   rather,   it   means   avoiding   Private   respondent   reported   Barbizon   Corporation,   a  
mendicancy   in   the   international   community.   Independence   corporation   organized   and   doing   business   under  the   laws   of  
refers   to   the   freedom   from   undue   foreign   control   of   the   New  York,  USA,  opposed  the  application.  It  was  alleged  that  
national   economy,   especially   in   such   strategic   industries   as   in   its   trademark   is   confusingly   similar   with   that   of   Escobar   and  
the  development  of  natural  resources  and  public  utilities.   that   the   registration   of   the   said   trademark   will   cause   damage  
  to  its  business  reputation  and  goodwill.  In  1974,  the  Director  
The   WTO   reliance   on   “most   favored   nation,”   “national   of   Patents   gave   due   course   to   the   application.   Escobar   later  
treatment,”   and   “trade   without   discrimination”   cannot   be   assigned   all   his   rights   and   interest   over   the   trademark   to  
struck   down   as   unconstitutional   as   in   fact   they   are   rules   of   petitioner.  In  1979,  Escobar  failed  to  file  with  the  Bureau  the  
equality   and   reciprocity   that   apply   to   all   WTO   members.   affidavit   of   use   of   the   trademark   required   under   the  
Aside  from  envisioning  a  trade  policy  based  on  “equality  and   Philippine   Trademark   Law.   Due   to   this   failure,   the   Bureau  
reciprocity,”  the  fundamental  law  encourages  industries  that   cancelled   Escobar’s   certificate   of   registration.   In   1981,  
are   “competitive   in   both   domestic   and   foreign   markets,”   Escobar   and   petitioner   separately   filed   this   application   for  
thereby   demonstrating   a   clear   policy   against   a   sheltered   registration   of   the   same   trademark.   (IPC   2049).   Private  
domestic  trade  environment,  but  one  in  favor  of  the  gradual   respondent   opposed   again.   This   time   it   alleged   (1)   that   the  
development  of  robust  industries  that  can  compete  with  the   said  trademark  was  registered  with  the  US  Patent  Office;  (2)  
best   in   the   foreign   markets.   Indeed,   Filipino   managers   and   that   it   is   entitled   to   protection   as   well-­‐known   mark   under  
Filipino   enterprises   have   shown   capability   and   tenacity   to   Article   6   bis   of   the   Paris   Convention,   EO   913   and   the   two  
compete  internationally.  And  given  a  free  trade  environment,   Memoranda   of   the   Minister   of   Trade   and   Industry   and   (3)  
Filipino   entrepreneurs   and   managers   in   Hongkong   have   that  its  use  on  the  same  class  of  goods  amounts  to  a  violation  
demonstrated   the   Filipino   capacity   to   grow   and   to   prosper   of   the   Trademark   Law   and   Art.   189   of   the   RPC.   Petitioner  
against  the  best  offered  under  a  policy  of  laissez  faire.   raised  the  defense  of  Res  Judicata.  
   
It  is  true,  as  alleged  by  petitioners,  that  broad  constitutional   Issue:  
principles   require   the   State   to   develop   an   independent    One   of   the   requisites   of   res   judicata   is   identical   causes   of  
national   economy   effectively   controlled   by   Filipinos;   and   to   action.   Do   IPC   No.   686   and   IPC   No.   2049   involve   the   same  
protect   and/or   prefer   Filipino   labor,   products,   domestic   cause  of  action?  
materials   and   locally   produced   goods.   But   it   is   equally   true    
that   such   principles   —   while   serving   as   judicial   and   legislative   Held:    
guides   —   are   not   in   themselves   sources   of   causes   of   action.   No.  The  issue  of  ownership  of  the  trademark  was  not  raised  
Moreover,   there   are   other   equally   fundamental   in   IPC   686.   IPC   2049   raised   the   issue   of   ownership,   the   first  
constitutional   principles   relied   upon   by   the   Senate   which   registration   and   use   of   the   trademark   in   the   US   and   other  
mandate  the  pursuit  of  a  “trade  policy  that  serves  the  general   countries,   and   the   international   recognition   of   the   trademark  
welfare  and  utilizes  all  forms  and  arrangements  of  exchange   established   by   extensive   use   and   advertisement   of  
on   the   basis   of   equality   and   reciprocity”   and   the   promotion   respondents   products   for   over   40   years   here   and   abroad.  
of   industries   “which   are   competitive   in   both   domestic   and   These   are   different   from   the   issues   of   confessing   similarity  
foreign   markets,”   thereby   justifying   its   acceptance   of   said   and  damage  in  IPC  686.  The  issue  of  prior  use  may  have  been  
treaty.   So   too,   the   alleged   impairment   of   sovereignty   in   the   raised  in  IPC  686  but  this  claim  was  limited  to  prior  use  in  the  
exercise  of  legislative  and  judicial  powers  is  balanced  by  the   Philippines   only.   Prior   use   in   IPC   2049   stems   from   the  
adoption   of   the   generally   accepted   principles   of   international   respondents   claims   originator   of   the   word   and   symbol  
law  as  part  of  the  law  of  the  land  and  the  adherence  of  the   “Barbizon”,   as   the   first   and   registered   user   of   the   mark  
Constitution   to   the   policy   of   cooperation   and   amity   with   all   attached  to  its  products  which  have  been  sold  and  advertised  
nations.   would   arise   for   a   considerable   number   of   years   prior   to  
  petitioner’s   first   application.   Indeed,   these   are   substantial  
That   the   Senate,   after   deliberation   and   voting,   voluntarily   allegations   that   raised   new   issues   and   necessarily   gave  
and  overwhelmingly  gave  its  consent  to  the  WTO  Agreement   respondents  a  new  cause  of  action.  
thereby   making   it   “a   part   of   the   law   of   the   land”   is   a    
legitimate  exercise  of  its  sovereign  duty  and  power.  We  find   Moreover,   the   cancellation   of   petitioner’s   certificate  
no  “patent  and  gross”  arbitrariness  or  despotism  “by  reason   registration   for   failure   to   file   the   affidavit   of   use   arose   after  
of   passion   or   personal   hostility”   in   such   exercise.   It   is   not   IPC   686.   This   gave   respondent   another   cause   to   oppose   the  
impossible  to  surmise  that  this  Court,  or  at  least  some  of  its   second  application.  
members,   may   even   agree   with   petitioners   that   it   is   more    
advantageous  to  the  national  interest  to  strike  down  Senate   It   is   also   to   be   noted   that   the   oppositions   in   the   first   and  
Resolution  No.  97.  But  that  is  not  a  legal  reason  to  attribute   second   cases   are   based   on   different   laws.   Causes   of   action  
grave   abuse   of   discretion   to   the   Senate   and   to   nullify   its   which   are   distinct   and   independent   from   each   other,  
decision.   To   do   so   would   constitute   grave   abuse   in   the   although   out   of   the   same   contract,   transaction,   or   state   of  
exercise   of   our   own   judicial   power   and   duty.   Ineludibly,   what   facts,   may   be   sued   on   separately,   recovery   on   one   being   no  
the   Senate   did   was   a   valid   exercise   of   its   authority.   As   to   bar  to  subsequent  actions  on  others.  The  mere  fact  that  the  
whether   such   exercise   was   wise,   beneficial   or   viable   is   same   relief   is   sought   in   the   subsequent   action   will   not   render  
outside   the   realm   of   judicial   inquiry   and   review.   That   is   a   the   judgment   in   the   prior   action   operating   as   res   judicata,  
matter  between  the  elected  policy  makers  and  the  people.  As   such  as  where  the  actions  are  based  on  different  statutes.  
to   whether   the   nation   should   join   the   worldwide   march    
toward   trade   liberalization   and   economic   globalization   is   a   Samson  vs.  Daway,  GR  No.  106654,  July  21,  2004  
matter   that   our   people   should   determine   in   electing   their   Facts:  
policy   makers.   After   all,   the   WTO   Agreement   allows    Samson,   owner/proprietor   of   ITTI   Shoes/Mano   Shoes  
Manufacturing   Corporation   located   at   Robinson’s   Galleria,  
 EDSA  corner  Ortigas  Avenue,  Quezon  City,  did  then  and  there   f) Layout-­‐Designs  (Topographies)  of  Integrated  Circuits;  and  
willfully,   unlawfully   and   feloniously   distribute,   sell   and/or   g) Protection  of  Undisclosed  Information  (n,  TRIPS).  
offer   for   sale   CATERPILLAR   products   such   as   footwear,    
garments,   clothing,   bags,   accessories   and   paraphernalia   7. RA  8293  -­‐  Intellectual  Property  Law  
which   are   closely   identical   to   and/or   colorable   imitations   of    
the   authentic   Caterpillar   products   and   likewise   using   PRELIMINARY  MATTERS  
trademarks,   symbols   and/or   designs   as   would   cause    
confusion,   mistake   or   deception   on   the   part   of   the   buying   1. STATE  POLICY  DECLARATION  –  SEC.  2  
public  to  the  damage  and  prejudice  of  CATERPILLAR,  INC.,  the    
prior  adopter,  user  and  owner  of  the  following  internationally:   Sec.  2.  Declaration  of  State  Policy.  -­‐  The  State  recognizes  that  an  
“CATERPILLAR”,  “CAT”,  “CATERPILLAR  &  DESIGN”,  “CAT  AND   effective   intellectual   and   industrial   property   system   is   vital   to   the  
DESIGN”,  “WALKING  MACHINES”  and  “TRACK-­‐TYPE  TRACTOR   development  of  domestic  and  creative  activity,  facilitates  transfer  
&   DESIGN.”   Caterpillar   Inc.   sued   Samson   for   unfair   of   technology,   attracts   foreign   investments,   and   ensures   market  
competition   in   RTC.   Samson   filed   a   motion   to   for   the   quashal   access   for   our   products.   It   shall   protect   and   secure   the   exclusive  
of  information  for  lack  of  jurisdiction.  Samson  contended  that   rights   of   scientists,   inventors,   artists   and   other   gifted   citizens   to  
since   under   Section   170   of   R.A.   No.   8293,   the   penalty   of   their   intellectual   property   and   creations,   particularly   when  
imprisonment   for   unfair   competition   does   not   exceed   six   beneficial  to  the  people,  for  such  periods  as  provided  in  this  Act.  
years,  the  offense  is  cognizable  by  the  Municipal  Trial  Courts    
and  not  by  the  Regional  Trial  Court,  per  R.A.  No.  7691.   The  use  of  intellectual  property  bears  a  social  function.  To  this  end,  
xxx   Under   Section   170   of   R.A.   No.   8293,   which   took   the   State   shall   promote   the   diffusion   of   knowledge   and  
effect   on   January   1,   1998,   the   criminal   penalty   for   information   for   the   promotion   of   national   development   and  
infringement   of   registered   marks,   unfair   competition,   progress  and  the  common  good.  It  is  also  the  policy  of  the  State  to  
false   designation   of   origin   and   false   description   or   streamline   administrative   procedures   of   registering   patents,  
representation,  is  imprisonment  from  2  to  5  years  and   trademarks   and   copyright,   to   liberalize   the   registration   on   the  
a   fine   ranging   from   Fifty   Thousand   Pesos   to   Two   transfer   of   technology,   and   to   enhance   the   enforcement   of  
Hundred   Thousand   Pesos.   (jurisdiction   of   Municipal   intellectual  property  rights  in  the  Philippines.  (n)  
Trial  Courts)    
xxx   Under   Section   27   of   of   R.A.   No.   166   (The   Twentieth  Century  Music  Corp  vs.  Aiken  422  U.S.  151  
Trademark  Law)   Facts:    
SEC.   27.   Jurisdiction   of   Court   of   First   Instance.   –   All   20Th   Century   Music   Corporation   copyrighted   songs   were   received  
actions   under   this   Chapter   [V   –   Infringement]   and   on  the  radio  in  Aiken’s  food  shop  from  a  local  broadcasting  station,  
Chapters   VI   [Unfair   Competition]   and   VII   [False   which   was   licensed   by   the   American   Society   of   Composers,  
Designation   of   Origin   and   False   Description   or   Authors   and   Publishers   to   perform   the   songs,   but   Aiken   had   no  
Representation],   hereof   shall   be   brought   before   the   such   license.   20th   Century   Music   then   sued   Aiken   for   copyright  
Court  of  First  Instance.   infringement.  The  District  Court  granted  awards,  but  the  Court  of  
  Appeals  reversed.  
Issue:      
Whether  or  not  R.A.  No.  166  was  expressly  repealed  by  R.A.   Issue:    
No.  8293?   Whether   the   reception   of   a   radio   broadcast   of   a   copyrighted  
  musical   composition   can   constitute   copyright   infringement   when  
Held:     the  copyright  owner  has  licensed  the  broadcaster  to  perform  the  
No,  R.A.  No.  8293  does  not  expressly  repealed  R.A.  166.  SEC.   composition  publicly  for  profit?  
239.  Repeals.  –  239.1.  All  Acts  and  parts  of  Acts  inconsistent    
herewith,   more   particularly   Republic   Act   No.   165,   as   Held:  
amended;   Republic   Act   No.   166,   as   amended;   and   Articles    Aiken   did   not   infringe   upon   20th   Century   exclusive   right,   under  
188   and   189   of   the   Revised   Penal   Code;   Presidential   Decree   the  Copyright  Act,  "[t]o  perform  the  copyrighted  work  publicly  for  
No.   49,   including   Presidential   Decree   No.   285,   as   amended,   profit,"   since   the   radio   reception   did   not   constitute   a  
are  hereby  repealed.   "performance"  of  the  copyrighted  songs.  
  To   hold   that   Aiken   "performed"   the   copyrighted   works   would  
Notably,   the   aforequoted   clause   did   not   expressly   repeal   R.A.   obviously  result  in  a  wholly  unenforceable  regime  of  copyright  law,  
No.  166  in  its  entirety,  otherwise,  it  would  not  have  used  the   and   would   also   be   highly   inequitable,   since   (short   of   keeping   his  
phrases   “parts   of   Acts”   and   “inconsistent   herewith;”   and   it   radio   turned   off)   one   in   Aiken's   position   would   be   unable   to  
would  have  simply  stated  “Republic  Act  No.  165,  as  amended;   protect   himself   from   infringement   liability.   Such   a   ruling,  
Republic  Act  No.  166,  as  amended;  and  Articles  188  and  189   moreover,   would   authorize   the   sale   of   an   untold   number   of  
of   the   Revised   Penal   Code;   Presidential   Decree   No.   49,   licenses   for   what   is   basically   a   single   rendition   of   a   copyrighted  
including   Presidential   Decree   No.   285,   as   amended   are   work,  thus  conflicting  with  the  balanced  purpose  of  the  Copyright  
hereby  repealed.”  It  would  have  removed  all  doubts  that  said   Act  of  assuring  the  composer  an  adequate  return  for  the  value  of  
specific   laws   had   been   rendered   without   force   and   effect.   his   composition   while,   at   the   same   time,   protecting   the   public  
The   use   of   the   phrases   “parts   of   Acts”   and   “inconsistent   from  oppressive  monopolies.  
herewith”   only   means   that   the   repeal   pertains   only   to   The   limited   scope   of   the   copyright   holder's   statutory   monopoly,  
provisions   which   are   repugnant   or   not   susceptible   of   like   the   limited   copyright   duration   required   by   the   Constitution,  
harmonization   with   R.A.   No.   8293.7   Section   27   of   R.A.   No.   reflects   a   balance   of   competing   claims   upon   the   public   interest:  
166,  however,  is  consistent  and  in  harmony  with  Section  163   creative   work   is   to   be   encouraged   and   rewarded,   but   private  
of   R.A.   No.   8293.   Had   R.A.   No.   8293   intended   to   vest   motivation   must   ultimately   serve   the   cause   of   promoting   broad  
jurisdiction   over   violations   of   intellectual   property   rights   with   public   availability   of   literature,   music,   and   the   other   arts.   The  
the  Metropolitan  Trial  Courts,  it  would  have  expressly  stated   immediate   effect   of   our   copyright   law   is   to   secure   a   fair   return   for  
so  under  Section  163  thereof.   an   "author's"   creative   labor.   But   the   ultimate   aim   is,   by   this  
  incentive,   to   stimulate   artistic   creativity   for   the   general   public  
6. INTELLECTUAL   PROPERTY   RIGHTS   -­‐   TRADEMARK   ,   good.   "The   sole   interest   of   the   United   States   and   the   primary  
COPYRIGHT  AND  PATENTS  Sec.  4.  1,  RA  8293   object  in  conferring  the  monopoly,"  this  Court  has  said,  "lie  in  the  
  general  benefits  derived  by  the  public  from  the  labors  of  authors."  
SEC.   4.   Definitions.   -­‐   4.1.   The   term   “intellectual   property   When   technological   change   has   rendered   its   literal   terms  
rights”  consists  of:   ambiguous,   the   Copyright   Act   must   be   construed   in   light   of   this  
a) Copyright  and  Related  Rights;   basic  purpose.  
b) Trademarks  and  Service  Marks;    
c) Geographic  Indications;   Feist  Publications  vs.  Rural  Tele  Servs  Co.,  499  U.S.  340,  1991  
d) Industrial  Designs;   Facts:  
e) Patents;  
  Rural  Telephone  Service  Company  is  a  certified  public  utility  that   Common   sense   tells   us   that   100   uncopyrightable   facts   do   not  
provides   telephone   service   to   several   communities   in   northwest   magically  change  their  status  when  gathered  together  in  one  place.  
Kansas.   It   is   subject   to   a   state   regulation   that   requires   all   Yet   copyright   law   seems   to   contemplate   that   compilations   that  
telephone   companies   operating   in   Kansas   to   issue   annually   an   consist   exclusively   of   facts   are   potentially   within   its   scope.   Facts  
updated   telephone   directory.   Accordingly,   as   a   condition   of   its   are  not  copyrightable.  The  sine  qua  non  of  copyright  is  originality.  
monopoly   franchise,   Rural   publishes   a   typical   telephone   directory,   To  qualify  for  copyright  protection,  a  work  must  be  original  to  the  
consisting  of  white  pages  and  yellow  pages.  The  white  pages  list  in   author.   See   Harper   Original,   as   the   term   is   used   in   copyright,  
alphabetical   order   the   names   of   Rural's   subscribers,   together   with   means   only   that   the   work   was   independently   created   by   the  
their  towns  and  telephone  numbers.  The  yellow  pages  list  Rural's   author   (as   opposed   to   copied   from   other   works),   and   that   it  
business   subscribers   alphabetically   by   category   and   feature   possesses  at  least  some  minimal  degree  of  creativity.  To  be  sure,  
classified   advertisements   of   various   sizes.   Rural   distributes   its   the   requisite   level   of   creativity   is   extremely   low;   even   a   slight  
directory   free   of   charge   to   its   subscribers,   but   earns   revenue   by   amount   will   suffice.   The   vast   majority   of   works   make   the   grade  
selling  yellow  pages  advertisements.   quite  easily,  as  they  possess  some  creative  spark,  "no  matter  how  
Feist  Publications,  Inc.,  is  a  publishing  company  that  specializes  in   crude,  humble  or  obvious"  it  might  be.  
area-­‐wide  telephone  directories.  Unlike  a  typical  directory,  which    
covers   only   a   particular   calling   area,   Feist's   area-­‐wide   directories   Why  facts  are  not  copyrightable?  
cover  a  much  larger  geographical  range,  reducing  the  need  to  call   No   one   may   claim   originality   as   to   facts.   This   is   because   facts   do  
directory   assistance   or   consult   multiple   directories.   The   Feist   not   owe   their   origin   to   an   act   of   authorship.   The   distinction   is   one  
directory   that   is   the   subject   of   this   litigation   covers   11   different   between   creation   and   discovery:   the   first   person   to   find   and  
telephone  service  areas  in  15  counties  and  contains  46,878  white   report   a   particular   fact   has   not   created   the   fact;   he   or   she   has  
pages  listings  -­‐-­‐  compared  to  Rural's  approximately  7,700  listings.   merely  discovered  its  existence.  One  who  discovers  a  fact  is  not  its  
Like   Rural's   directory,   Feist's   is   distributed   free   of   charge   and   "maker"  or  "originator."  The  discoverer  merely  finds  and  records.  
includes   both   white   pages   and   yellow   pages.   Feist   and   Rural    
compete  vigorously  for  yellow  pages  advertising.   Illustrative  Example  
As  the  sole  provider  of  telephone  service  in  its  service  area,  Rural   Census-­‐takers  do  not  "create"  the  population  figures  that  emerge  
obtains   subscriber   information   quite   easily.   Persons   desiring   from   their   efforts;   in   a   sense,   they   copy   these   figures   from   the  
telephone   service   must   apply   to   Rural   and   provide   their   names   world   around   them.   Census   data   therefore   do   not   trigger  
and  addresses;  Rural  then  assigns  them  a  telephone  number.  Feist   copyright   because   these   data   are   not   "original"   in   the  
is  not  a  telephone  company,  let  alone  one  with  monopoly  status,   constitutional   sense.   The   same   is   true   of   all   facts   -­‐-­‐   scientific,  
and   therefore   lacks   independent   access   to   any   subscriber   historical,   biographical,   and   news   of   the   day.   "They   may   not   be  
information.   To   obtain   white   pages   listings   for   its   area-­‐wide   copyrighted   and   are   part   of   the   public   domain   available   to   every  
directory,   Feist   approached   each   of   the   11   telephone   companies   person."  
operating  in  northwest  Kansas  and  offered  to  pay  for  the  right  to    
use  its  white  pages  listings.   Factual   compilations,   on   the   other   hand,   may   possess   the  
Of   the   11   telephone   companies,   only   Rural   refused   to   license   its   requisite   originality.   The   compilation   author   typically   chooses  
listings   to   Feist.   Rural's   refusal   created   a   problem   for   Feist,   as   which   facts   to   include,   in   what   order   to   place   them,   and   how   to  
omitting   these   listings   would   have   left   a   gaping   hole   in   its   area-­‐ arrange   the   collected   data   so   that   they   may   be   used   effectively   by  
wide   directory,   rendering   it   less   attractive   to   potential   yellow   readers.  These  choices  as  to  selection  and  arrangement,  so  long  as  
pages  advertisers.   they  are  made  independently  by  the  compiler  and  entail  a  minimal  
Unable   to   license   Rural's   white   pages   listings,   Feist   used   them   degree   of   creativity,   are   sufficiently   original   that   Congress   may  
without   Rural's   consent.   Feist   began   by   removing   several   protect  such  compilations  through  the  copyright  laws.  Thus,  even  
thousand  listings  that  fell  outside  the  geographic  range  of  its  area-­‐ a   directory   that   contains   absolutely   no   protectible   written  
wide  directory,  then  hired  personnel  to  investigate  the  4,935  that   expression,   only   facts,   meets   the   constitutional   minimum   for  
remained.  These  employees  verified  [p*344]  the  data  reported  by   copyright   protection   if   it   features   an   original   selection   or  
Rural   and   sought   to   obtain   additional   information.   As   a   result,   a   arrangement.  
typical  Feist  listing  includes  the  individual's  street  address;  most  of    
Rural's  listings  do  not.  Notwithstanding  these  additions,  however,   Originality   does   not   signify   novelty;   a   work   may   be   original   even  
1,309  of  the  46,878  listings  in  Feist's  1983  directory  were  identical   though   it   closely   resembles   other   works   so   long   as   the   similarity   is  
to   listings   in   Rural's   1982-­‐1983   white   pages.   Four   of   these   were   fortuitous,  not  the  result  of  copying.  To  illustrate,  assume  that  two  
fictitious  listings  that  Rural  had  inserted  into  its  directory  to  detect   poets,   each   ignorant   of   the   other,   compose   identical   poems.  
copying.   Neither   work   is   novel,   yet   both   are   original   and,   hence,  
Rural  sued  for  copyright  infringement  in  the  District  Court  for  the   copyrightable.  
District   of   Kansas   taking   the   position   that   Feist,   in   compiling   its    
own  directory,  could  not  use  the  information  contained  in  Rural's   Originality   requires   independent   creation   plus   a   modicum   of  
white  pages.  Rural  asserted  that  Feist's  employees  were  obliged  to   creativity:   "While   the   word   writings   may   be   liberally   construed,   as  
travel   door-­‐to-­‐door   or   conduct   a   telephone   survey   to   discover   the   it  has  been,  to  include  original  designs  for  engraving,  prints,  &c.,  it  
same   information   for   themselves.   Feist   responded   that   such   is  only  such  as  are  original,  and  are  founded  in  the  creative  powers  
efforts   were   economically   impractical   and,   in   any   event,   of  the  mind.  The  writings  which  are  to  be  protected  are  the  fruits  
unnecessary   because   the   information   copied   was   beyond   the   of   intellectual   labor,   embodied   in   the   form   of   books,   prints,  
scope  of  copyright  protection.   engravings,   and   the   like."   Author   -­‐   in   a   constitutional   sense   is   to  
  mean  "he  to  whom  anything  owes  its  origin;  originator;  maker”.  
Issue:    
 Whether  or  not  Telephone  directories  are  copyrightable  or  not?   2. EFFECT   ON   INTERNATIONAL   CONVENTIONS   AND   ON  
  PRINCIPLE  OF  RECIPROCITY  -­‐  SEC  3  &  231  
Held:      
The   court   rule   that   facts   are   not   copyrightable;   the   other,   that   Sec.   3.   International   Conventions   and   Reciprocity.   -­‐   Any   person  
compilations   of   facts   generally   are.   There   can   be   no   valid   who   is   a   national   or   who   is   domiciled   or   has   a   real   and   effective  
copyright  in  facts  is  universally  understood.  The  most  fundamental   industrial   establishment   in   a   country   which   is   a   party   to   any  
axiom  of  copyright  law  is  that  "no  author  may  copyright  his  ideas   convention,   treaty   or   agreement   relating   to   intellectual   property  
or  the  facts  he  narrates."  Rural  wisely  concedes  this  point,  noting   rights   or   the   repression   of   unfair   competition,   to   which   the  
in   its   brief   that   "facts   and   discoveries,   of   course,   are   not   Philippines   is   also   a   party,   or   extends   reciprocal   rights   to   nationals  
themselves   subject   to   copyright   protection."   However,   it   is   of   the   Philippines   by   law,   shall   be   entitled   to   benefits   to   the   extent  
beyond   dispute   that   compilations   of   facts   are   within   the   subject   necessary  to  give  effect  to  any  provision  of  such  convention,  treaty  
matter   of   copyright.   Compilations   were   expressly   mentioned   in   or  reciprocal  law,  in  addition  to  the  rights  to  which  any  owner  of  
the  Copyright  Act  of  1909,  and  again  in  the  Copyright  Act  of  1976.   an  intellectual  property  right  is  otherwise  entitled  by  this  Act.  (n)  
   
NOTES   Sec.  231.  Equitable  Principles  to  Govern  Proceedings  –  In  all  inter  
On  what  basis  may  one  claim  a  copyright  in  such  a  work?   partes   proceedings   in   the   Office   under   this   Act,   the   equitable  
principles  of  laches,  estoppel,  and  acquiescence  where  applicable,   cream   product,   the   user   must   sufficiently   prove   that   she  
may  be  considered  and  applied.  (Sec.  9-­‐A,  R.A.  No.  165)   registered   or   used   it   before   anybody   else   did.   The   petitioner’s  
  copyright   and   patent   registration   of   the   name   and   container  
Mirpuri  vs.  CA  GR  No.  114508,  Nov.  19,  1999  (supra)   would  not  guarantee  her  right  to  the  exclusive  use  of  the  same  for  
  the   reason   that   they   are   not   appropriate   subjects   of   the   said  
3. COVERAGE   OF   INTELLECTUAL   PROPERTY   RIGHTS/DIFFERENCES   intellectual   rights.   Consequently,   a   preliminary   injunction   order  
SEC.  4.1   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  
Sec.  4.  Definitions.  –   exclusion   of   others,   not   having   proven   that   she   has   registered   a  
Sec.  4.1.  The  term  “intellectual  property  rights”  consists  of:   trademark  thereto  or  used  the  same  before  anyone  did.  
a) Copyright  and  Related  Rights;    
b) Trademarks  and  Service  Marks;   Pearl  &  Dean  Inc.  Vs  Shoemart  Inc.,  GR  No.  148222,  August  15,  
c) Geographic  Indications;   2003  
d) Industrial  Designs;   Facts:    
e) Patents;   Pearl  &  Dean  (P&D)  is  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  advertising  
f) Layout-­‐Designs  (Topographies)  of  Integrated  Circuits;  and   display  units  referred  to  as  light  boxes.  These  units  utilize  specially  
g) Protection  of  Undisclosed  Information  (n,  TRIPS).   printed   posters   sandwiched   between   plastic   sheets   and  
  illuminated  with  backlights.  It  was  able  to  secure  registration  over  
  these   illuminated   display   units.   The   advertising   light   boxes   were  
  marketed   under   the   trademark   “Poster   Ads”.   In   1985,   P&D  
Kho  vs.  CA  Gr.  No  115758,  March  19,  2002   negotiated  with  defendant  Shoemart,  Inc.  (SMI)  for  the  lease  and  
Facts:   installation   of   the   light   boxes   in   SM   North   Edsa.   However,   since  
 Kho   is   doing   business   under   the   name   and   style   of   KEC   Cosmetics   SM   North   Edsa   was   under   construction,   SMI   offered   as   alternative  
Laboratory,   the   registered   owner   of   the   copyrights   Chin   Chun   Su   SM   Makati   and   Cubao.   During   the   signing   of   the   Contract,   SMI  
and   Oval   Facial   Cream   Container/Case,   that   she   also   has   patent   only  returned  the  Contract  with  SM  Makati.  Manager  of  petitioner  
rights  on  Chin  Chun  Su  &  Device  and  Chin  Chun  Su  for  medicated   reminded   SMI   that   their   agreement   includes   SM   Cubao.   However,  
cream   after   purchasing   the   same   from   Quintin   Cheng,   the   SMI   did   not   bother   to   reply.   Instead,   respondent   informed  
registered   owner   thereof   in   the   Supplemental   Register   of   the   petitioner  that  they  are  rescinding  the  contract  for  SM  Makati  due  
Philippine  Patent  Office.   to   non-­‐performance.   Two   years   later,   SMI   engaged   the   services   of  
Summerville  advertised  and  sold  Kho’s  cream  products  under  the   EYD   Rainbow   Advertising   to   make   the   light   boxes.   These   were  
brand   name   Chin   Chun   Su,   in   similar   containers   that   Kho   uses,   delivered   in   a   staggered   basis   and   installed   at   SM   Megamall   and  
thereby   misleading   the   public,   and   resulting   in   the   decline   in   the   SM   City.   In   1989,   petitioner   received   reports   that   exact   copy   of   its  
Kho’s   business   sales   and   income;   and,   that   the   Summerville   light  boxes  was  installed  by  SMI.  It  further  discovered  that  North  
should  be  enjoined  from  allegedly  infringing  on  the  copyrights  and   Edsa   Marketing   Inc.   (NEMI),   sister   company   of   SMI,   was   set   up  
patents  of  the  Kho.   primarily  to  sell  advertising  space  in  lighted  display  units  located  in  
Summerville   on   the   other   hand,   alleged   as   their   defense   that   they   SMI’s   different   branches.   Petitioner   sent   letters   to   respondents  
are   the   exclusive   and   authorized   importer,   re-­‐packer   and   asking   them   to   cease   using   the   light   boxes   and   the   discontinued  
distributor   of   Chin   Chun   Su   products   manufactured   by   Shun   Yi   use   of   the   trademark   “Poster   Ads”.   Claiming   that   SMI   and   NEMI  
Factory   of   Taiwan;   that   the   said   Taiwanese   manufacturing   failed  to  meet  its  demand,  petitioner  filed  a  case  for  infringement  
company   authorized   Summerville   to   register   its   trade   name   Chin   of   trademark   and   copyright,   unfair   competition   and   damages.   SMI  
Chun   Su   Medicated   Cream   with   the   Philippine   Patent   Office   and   maintained   that   it   independently   developed   its   poster   panels  
other   appropriate   governmental   agencies;   that   KEC   Cosmetics   using   commonly   known   techniques   and   available   technology  
Laboratory   of   the   of   Kho   obtained   the   copyrights   through   without   notice   of   or   reference   to   P&D’s   copyright.   In   addition,   it  
misrepresentation   and   falsification;   and,   that   the   authority   of   said   that   registration   of   “Poster   Ads”   obtained   by   petitioner   was  
Quintin   Cheng,   assignee   of   the   patent   registration   certificate,   to   only   for   stationeries   such   as   letterheads,   envelopes   and   the   like.  
distribute   and   market   Chin   Chun   Su   products   in   the   Philippines   “Poster   Ads”   is   a   generic   term   which   cannot   be   appropriated   as  
had   already   been   terminated   by   the   said   Taiwanese   trademark,  and,  as  such,  registration  of  such  mark  is  invalid.  It  also  
Manufacturing  Company.   stressed   that   P&D   is   not   entitled   to   the   reliefs   sought   because   the  
On   December   20,   1991,   Elidad   C.   Kho   filed   a   complaint   for   advertising   display   units   contained   no   copyright   notice   as  
injunction   and   damages   with   a   prayer   for   the   issuance   of   a   writ   of   provided  for  by  law.  RTC  found  SMI  and  NEMI  jointly  and  severally  
preliminary   injunction,   against   the   Summerville   General   liable   for   infringement   of   copyright   and   trademark.   CA   reversed  
Merchandising   and   Company   (Summerville,   for   brevity)   and   Ang   saying  that  it  agreed  with  SMI  that  what  was  copyrighted  was  the  
Tiam  Chay.   technical  drawings  only  and  not  the  light  boxes.  Lightboxes  cannot  
  be   considered   as   either   prints,   pictorial   illustrations,   advertising  
Issue:   copies,   labels,   tags   or   box   wraps,   to   be   properly   classified   as  
 Whether   the   copyright   and   patent   over   the   name   and   container   copyrightable   class   “O”   work.   In   addition,   CA   stressed   that   the  
of  a  beauty  cream  product  would  entitle  the  registrant  to  the  use   protective   mantle   of   the   Trademark   Law   extends   only   to   the  
and  ownership  over  the  same  to  the  exclusion  of  others?   goods   used   by   the   first   user   as   specified   in   its   certificate   of  
  registration.  The  registration  of  the  trademark  “Poster  Ads”  covers  
Held:     only  stationeries  such  as  letterheads,  envelopes  and  calling  cards  
Trademark,   copyright   and   patents   are   different   intellectual   and  newsletter.  
property   rights   that   cannot   be   interchanged   with   one   another.   A    
trademark   is   any   visible   sign   capable   of   distinguishing   the   goods   Issues:  
(trademark)   or   services   (service   mark)   of   an   enterprise   and   shall    (1)   If   the   engineering   or   technical   drawings   of   an   advertising  
include   a   stamped   or   marked   container   of   goods.   In   relation   display   unit   are   granted   copyright   protection   is   the   light   box  
thereto,  a  trade  name  means  the  name  or  designation  identifying   depicted   in   such   drawings   ipso   facto   also   protected   by   such  
or   distinguishing   an   enterprise.   Meanwhile,   the   scope   of   a   copyright?   (2)   Should   the   light   box   be   registered   separately?   (3)  
copyright   is   confined   to   literary   and   artistic   works   which   are   Can  the  owner  of  the  registered  trademark  legally  prevent  others  
original   intellectual   creations   in   the   literary   and   artistic   domain   from   using   such   mark   if   it   is   mere   abbreviation   of   a   term  
protected   from   the   moment   of   their   creation.   Patentable   descriptive  of  his  goods,  services  or  business?    
inventions,  on  the  other  hand,  refer  to  any  technical  solution  of  a    
problem   in   any   field   of   human   activity   which   is   new,   involves   an   Held:    
inventive  step  and  is  industrially  applicable.   (1.)   No.   Copyright   is   purely   statutory.   As   such,   the   rights   are  
Kho  has  no  right  to  support  her  claim  for  the  exclusive  use  of  the   limited   to   what   the   statute   confers.   It   may   be   obtained   and  
subject  trade  name  and  its  container.  The  name  and  container  of  a   enjoyed   only   with   respect   to   the   subjects   and   by   the   persons,   and  
beauty   cream   product   are   proper   subjects   of   a   trademark   on  the  terms  and  conditions  specified  in  the  statute.  Accordingly,  
inasmuch  as  the  same  falls  squarely  within  its  definition.  In  order   it   can   cover   only   the   works   falling   within   the   statutory  
to  be  entitled  to  exclusively  use  the  same  in  the  sale  of  the  beauty   enumeration   or   description.   Petitioner   secured   copyright   under  
classification  class  “O”  work.  Thus,  copyright  protection  extended   Licensing   and   develop   and   implement   strategies   to  
only   to   the   technical   drawings   and   not   to   the   light   box   itself   promote  and  facilitate  technology  transfer;  
because   the   latter   was   not   at   all   in   the   category   of   “prints,   d. Promote   the   use   of   patent   information   as   a   tool   for  
pictorial   illustrations,   advertising   copies,   labels,   tags   and   box   technology  development;  
wraps.   What   the   law   does   not   include,   it   excludes,   and   for   the   e. Publish  regularly  in  its  own  publication  the  patents,  marks,  
good  reason:  the  light  box  was  not  a  literary  or  artistic  piece  which   utility  models  and  industrial  designs,  issued  and  approved,  
could   be   copyrighted   under   the   copyright   law.   And   no   less   clearly,   and  the  technology  transfer  arrangements  registered;  
neither   could   the   lack   of  statutory  authority  to  make  the  light  box   f. Administratively   adjudicate   contested   proceedings  
copyrightable   be   remedied   by   the   simplistic   act   of   entitling   the   affecting  intellectual  property  rights;  and  
copyright  certificate  issued  by  the  National  Library  as  “Advertising   g. Coordinate   with   other   government   agencies   and   the  
Display   Units”.   It   must   be   noted   that   copyright   is   confined   to   private   sector   efforts   to   formulate   and   implement   plans  
literary  and  artistic  works  which  are  original  intellectual  creations   and   policies   to   strengthen   the   protection   of   intellectual  
in  the  literary  and  artistic  domain  protected  from  the  moment  of   property  rights  in  the  country.  
their  creation.      
(2.)   Yes.   Petitioner   never   secured   a   patent   for   the   light   boxes.   It   5.2. The  Office  shall  have  custody  of  all  records,  books,  drawings,  
therefore  acquired  no  patent  rights  which  could  have  protected  its   specifications,   documents,   and   other   papers   and   things  
invention,   if   in   fact   it   really   was.   And   because   it   had   no   patent,   relating   to   intellectual   property   rights   applications   filed   with  
petitioner  could  not  legally  prevent  anyone  from  manufacturing  or   the  Office.  (n)  
commercially  using  the  contraption.  To  be  able  to  effectively  and    
legally   preclude   others   from   copying   and   profiting   from   the   Sec.  6.  The  Organizational  Structure  of  the  IPO.  
invention,   a   patent   is   a   primordial   requirement.   No   patent,   no   6.1. The   Office   shall   be   headed   by   a   Director   General   who   shall   be  
protection.   The   ultimate   goal   of   a   patent   system   is   to   bring   new   assisted  by  two  (2)  Deputies  Director  General.  
designs  and  technologies  into  the  public  through  disclosure.  Ideas,    
once,  disclosed  to  the  public  without  protection  of  a  valid  patent,   6.2. The   Office   shall   be   divided   into   seven   (7)   Bureaus,   each   of  
are   subject   to   appropriation   without   significant   restraint.   The   which   shall   be   headed   by   a   Director   and   assisted   by   an  
Patent   Law   has   a   three-­‐fold   purpose:   first,   patent   law   seeks   to   Assistant  Director.  These  Bureaus  are:  
foster   and   reward   invention;   second,   it   promotes   disclosures   of   a. The  Bureau  of  Patents;  
inventions   to   stimulate   further   innovation   and   to   permit   the   b. The  Bureau  of  Trademarks;  
public   to   practice   the   invention   once   the   patent   expires;   third,   the   c. The  Bureau  of  Legal  Affairs;  
stringent   requirements   for   patent   protection   seek   to   ensure   that   d. The  Documentation,  Information  and  Technology  Transfer  
ideas   in   the   public   domain   remain   there   for   the   free   use   of   the   Bureau;  
public.   It   is   only   after   an   exhaustive   examination   by   the   patent   e. The  Management  Information  System  and  EDP  Bureau;  
office   that   patent   is   issued.   Therefore,   not   having   gone   through   f. The   Administrative,   Financial   and   Personnel   Services  
the   arduous   examination   for   patents,   petitioner   cannot   exclude   Bureau;  and  
others  from  the  manufacture,  sale  or  commercial  use  of  the  light   g. The  Bureau  of  Copyright  and  Other  Related  Rights.  
boxes   on   the   sole   basis   of   its   copyright   certificate   over   the    
technical  drawings.     6.3. The   Director   General,   Deputies   Director   General,   Directors  
(3.)   Court   agrees   with   CA   that   the   certificate   of   registration   issued   and   Assistant   Directors   shall   be   appointed   by   the   President,  
by  the  Director  of  Patents  can  confer  the  exclusive  right  to  use  its   and   the   other   officers   and   employees   of   the   Office   by   the  
own   symbol   only   to   those   goods   specified   in   the   certificate,   Secretary  of  Trade  and  Industry,  conformably  with  and  under  
subject   to   any   conditions   and   limitations   specified   in   the   the  Civil  Service  Law.  (n)  
certificate.   One   who   has   adopted   and   used   a   trademark   on   his    
goods   does   not   prevent   the   adoption   and   use   of   the   same   Sec.  7.  The  Director  General  and  Deputies  Director  General.  
trademark   by   others   for   products   which   are   of   a   different   7.1. Functions.  -­‐  The  Director  General  shall  exercise  the  following  
description.   Assuming   arguendo   that   “Poster   Ads”   could   validly   powers  and  functions:  
qualify   as   a   trademark,   the   failure   of   petitioner   to   secure   a   a. Manage  and  direct  all  functions  and  activities  of  the  Office,  
trademark   registration   for   specific   use   on   the   light   boxes   meant   including   the   promulgation   of   rules   and   regulations   to  
that  there  could  not  have  been  any  trademark  infringement  since   implement   the   objectives,   policies,   plans,   programs   and  
registration   was   an   essential   element   thereof.   There   is   no   projects  of  the  Office:  Provided,  That  in  the  exercise  of  the  
evidence   that   petitioner’s   use   of   “poster   Ads”   was   distinctive   or   authority   to   propose   policies   and   standards   in   relation   to  
well-­‐known.   As   noted   by   CA,   petitioner’s   expert   witness   himself   the   following:   (1)   the   effective,   efficient,   and   economical  
had  testified  that  “Poster  Ads”  was  not  too  generic  a  name.  SO  it   operations  of  the  Office  requiring  statutory  enactment;  (2)  
was   difficult   to   identify   it   with   any   company.   This   fact   also   coordination   with   other   agencies   of   government   in   relation  
prevented   the   application   of   the   doctrine   of   secondary   meaning.   to   the   enforcement   of   intellectual   property   rights;   (3)   the  
“Poster   Ads”   was   generic   and   incapable   of   being   used   as   a   recognition   of   attorneys,   agents,   or   other   persons  
trademark   because   it   was   used   in   the   field   of   poster   advertising   representing   applicants   or   other   parties   before   the   Office;  
the   very   business   engaged   in   by   petitioner.   Secondary   meaning   and   (4)   the   establishment   of   fees   for   the   filing   and  
means   that   a   word   or   phrase   originally   incapable   of   exclusive   processing   of   an   application   for   a   patent,   utility   model   or  
appropriation   with   reference   to   an   article   in   the   market   might   industrial   design   or   mark   or   a   collective   mark,   geographic  
nevertheless   have   been   used   for   so   long   and   so   exclusively   by   one   indication  and  other  marks  of  ownership,  and  for  all  other  
producer  with  reference  to  his  article  that,  in  the  trade  and  to  that   services   performed   and   materials   furnished   by   the   Office,  
branch  of  the  purchasing  public,  the  word  or  phrase  has  come  to   the   Director   General   shall   be   subject   to   the   supervision   of  
mean  that  the  article  was  his  property.  Petition  was  denied.   the  Secretary  of  Trade  and  Industry;  
  b. Exercise   exclusive   appellate   jurisdiction   over   all   decisions  
4. THE   INTELLECTUAL   PROPERTY   OFFICE   -­‐   SEC   5   TO   SEC   16,   AS   rendered   by   the   Director   of   Legal   Affairs,   the   Director   of  
AMENDED   Patents,   the   Director   of   Trademarks,   the   Director   of  
  Copyright  and  Other  Related  Rights,  and  the  Director  of  the  
Sec.  5.  Functions  of  the  Intellectual  Property  Office  (IPO).     Documentation,   Information   and   Technology   Transfer  
5.1. To   administer   and   implement   the   State   policies   declared   in   Bureau.   The   decisions   of   the   Director   General   in   the  
this   Act,   there   is   hereby   created   the   Intellectual   Property   exercise   of   his   appellate   jurisdiction   in   respect   of   the  
Office  (IPO)  which  shall  have  the  following  functions:   decisions   of   the   Director   of   Patents,   the   Director   of  
a. Examine   applications   for   grant   of   letters   patent   for   Trademarks   and   the   Director   of   Copyright   and   Other  
inventions  and  register  utility  models  and  industrial  designs;   Related  Rights  shall  be  appealable  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  
b. Examine   applications   for   the   registration   of   marks,   in  accordance  with  the  Rules  of  Court;  and  those  in  respect  
geographic  indication,  integrated  circuits;   of   the   decisions   of   the   Director   of   Documentation,  
c. Register   technology   transfer   arrangements   and   settle   Information   and   Technology   Transfer   Bureau   shall   be  
disputes   involving   technology   transfer   payments   covered   appealable  to  the  Secretary  of  Trade  and  Industry;  
by   the   provisions   of   Part   II,   Chapter   IX   on   Voluntary  
 c. Undertake   enforcement   functions   supported   by   concerned   models,   and   industrial   designs;   and   petitions   for   compulsory  
agencies   such   as   the   Philippine   National   Police,   the   licensing  of  patents;  
National   Bureau   of   Investigation,   the   Bureau   of   Customs,   10.2.  
the   Optical   Media   Board,   and   the   local   government   units,   (a) Exercise  original  jurisdiction  in  administrative  complaints  
among  others;   for   violations   of   laws   involving   intellectual   property  
d. Conduct   visits   during   reasonable   hours   to   establishments   rights:   Provided,   That   its   jurisdiction   is   limited   to  
and   businesses   engaging   in   activities   violating   intellectual   complaints  where  the  total  damages  claimed  are  not  less  
property  rights  and  provisions  of  this  Act  based  on  report,   than   Two   hundred   thousand   pesos   (Php   200,000):  
information  or  complaint  received  by  the  office;  and   Provided   further,   That   availment   of   the   provisional  
e. Such   other   functions   in   furtherance   of   protecting   IP   rights   remedies   may   be   granted   in   accordance   with   the   Rules  
and  objectives  of  this  Act.   of   Court.   The   Director   of   Legal   Affairs   shall   have   the  
  power   to   hold   and   punish   for   contempt   all   those   who  
7.2. Qualifications.   -­‐   The   Director   General   and   the   Deputies   disregard   orders   or   writs   issued   in   the   course   of   the  
Director   General   must   be   natural   born   citizens   of   the   proceedings.  (n)    
Philippines,  at  least  thirty-­‐five  (35)  years  of  age  on  the  day  of   (b) After   formal   investigation,   the   Director   for   Legal   Affairs  
their   appointment,   holders   of   a   college   degree,   and   of   proven   may   impose   one   (1)   or   more   of   the   following  
competence,   integrity,   probity   and   independence:   Provided,   administrative  penalties:  
That  the  Director  General  and  at  least  one  (1)  Deputy  Director   (i.) The  issuance  of  a  cease  and  desist  order  which  shall  
General   shall   be   members   of   the   Philippine   Bar   who   have   specify   the   acts   that   the   respondent   shall   cease   and  
engaged   in   the   practice   of   law   for   at   least   ten   (10)   years:   desist   from   and   shall   require   him   to   submit   a  
Provided   further,   That   in   the   selection   of   the   Director   General   compliance   report   within   a   reasonable   time   which  
and   the   Deputies   Director   General,   consideration   shall   be   shall  be  fixed  in  the  order;  
given   to   such   qualifications   as   would   result,   as   far   as   (ii.) The   acceptance   of   a   voluntary   assurance   of  
practicable,  in  the  balanced  representation  in  the  Directorate   compliance   or   discontinuance   as   may   be   imposed.  
General  of  the  various  fields  of  intellectual  property.   Such  voluntary  assurance  may  include  one  or  more  
  of  the  following:  
7.3. Term   of   Office.   -­‐   The   Director   General   and   the   Deputies   (1) An  assurance  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  
Director   General   shall   be   appointed   by   the   President   for   a   the  intellectual  property  law  violated;  
term  of  five  (5)  years  and  shall  be  eligible  for  reappointment   (2) An   assurance   to   refrain   from   engaging   in  
only   once:   Provided,   That   the   first   Director   General   shall   have   unlawful  and  unfair  acts  and  practices  subject  
a   first   term   of   seven   (7)   years.   Appointment   to   any   vacancy   of  the  formal  investigation;  
shall  be  only  for  the  unexpired  term  of  the  predecessor.   (3) An   assurance   to   recall,   replace,   repair,   or  
  refund   the   money   value   of   defective   goods  
7.4. The   Office   of   the   Director   General.   -­‐   The   Office   of   the   distributed  in  commerce;  and  
Director  General  shall  consist  of  the  Director  General  and  the   (4) An   assurance   to   reimburse   the   complainant  
Deputies   Director   General,   their   immediate   staff   and   such   the  expenses  and  costs  incurred  in  prosecuting  
Offices   and   Services   that   the   Director   General   will   set   up   to   the  case  in  the  Bureau  of  Legal  Affairs.  
support  directly  the  Office  of  the  Director  General.  (n)   (5) The   Director   of   Legal   Affairs   may   also   require  
  the   respondent   to   submit   periodic   compliance  
Sec.  8.  The  Bureau  of  Patents.  -­‐  The  Bureau  of  Patents  shall  have   reports   and   file   a   bond   to   guarantee  
the  following  functions:   compliance  of  his  undertaking;  
8.1. Search  and  examination  of  patent  applications  and  the  grant    
of  patents;   (iii.) The  condemnation  or  seizure  of  products  which  are  
8.2. Registration   of   utility   models,   industrial   designs,   and   subject   of   the   offense.   The   goods   seized   hereunder  
integrated  circuits;  and   shall   be   disposed   of   in   such   manner   as   may   be  
8.3. Conduct  studies  and  researches  in  the  field  of  patents  in  order   deemed  appropriate  by  the  Director  of  Legal  Affairs,  
to   assist   the   Director   General   in   formulating   policies   on   the   such   as   by   sale,   donation   to   distressed   local  
administration  and  examination  of  patents.  (n)   governments   or   to   charitable   or   relief   institutions,  
  exportation,   recycling   into   other   goods,   or   any  
Sec.   9.   The   Bureau   of   Trademarks.   -­‐   The   Bureau   of   Trademarks   combination   thereof,   under   such   guidelines   as   he  
shall  have  the  following  functions:   may  provide;  
9.1. Search   and   examination   of   the   applications   for   the   (iv.) The   forfeiture   of   paraphernalia   and   all   real   and  
registration  of  marks,  geographic  indications  and  other  marks   personal   properties   which   have   been   used   in   the  
of   ownership   and   the   issuance   of   the   certificates   of   commission  of  the  offense;  
registration;  and   (v.) The   imposition   of   administrative   fines   in   such  
9.2. Conduct   studies   and   researches   in   the   field   of   trademarks   in   amount   as   deemed   reasonable   by   the   Director   of  
order  to  assist  the  Director  General  in  formulating  policies  on   Legal   Affairs,   which   shall   in   no   case   be   less   than  
the  administration  and  examination  of  trademarks.  (n)   Five  thousand  pesos  (Php  5,000)  nor  more  than  One  
  hundred   fifty   thousand   pesos   (Php   150,000).   In  
Sec.  9A.  The  Bureau  of  Copyright  and  Other  Related  Rights.  -­‐  The   addition,   an   additional   fine   of   not   more   than   One  
Bureau   of   Copyright   and   Other   Related   Rights   shall   have   the   thousand   pesos   (Php   1,000)   shall   be   imposed   for  
following  functions:   each  day  of  continuing  violation;  
9A.1. Exercise   original   jurisdiction   to   resolve   disputes   relating   (vi.) The  cancellation  of  any  permit,  license,  authority,  or  
to  the  terms  of  a  license  involving  the  author’s  right  to  public   registration   which   may   have   been   granted   by   the  
performance  or  other  communication  of  his  work;   Office,   or   the   suspension   of   the   validity   thereof   for  
9A.2. Accept,   review   and   decide   on   applications   for   the   such  period  of  time  as  the  Director  of  Legal  Affairs  
accreditation   of   collective   management   organizations   or   may  deem  reasonable  which  shall  not  exceed  one  (1)  
similar  entities;   year;  
9A.3. Conduct   studies   and   researches   in   the   field   of   copyright   (vii.) The  withholding  of  any  permit,  license,  authority,  or  
and  related  rights;  and   registration   which   is   being   secured   by   the  
9A.4. Provide   other   copyright   and   related   rights   service   and   respondent  from  the  Office;    
charge  reasonable  fees  therefor.   (viii.) The  assessment  of  damages;  
  (ix.) Censure;  and  
Sec.  10.  The  Bureau  of  Legal  Affairs.   -­‐   The   Bureau   of   Legal   Affairs   (x.) Other   analogous   penalties   or   sanctions.   (Sec.   6,   7,   8,  
shall  have  the  following  functions:   and  9,  Executive  Order  No.  913  [1983]  a)  
10.1. Hear   and   decide   opposition   to   the   application   for    
registration   of   marks;   cancellation   of   trademarks;   subject   to   10.3. The   Director   General   may   by   Regulations   establish   the  
the   provisions   of   Section   64,   cancellation   of   patents,   utility   procedure  to  govern  the  implementation  of  this  Section.  (n)  
   13.4. The   Human   Resource   Development   Service   shall   design  
Sec.   11.   The   Documentation,   Information   and   Technology   and   implement   human   resource   development   plans   and  
Transfer   Bureau.   -­‐   The   Documentation,   Information   and   programs  for  the  personnel  of  the  Office;  provide  for  present  
Technology  Transfer  Bureau  shall  have  the  following  functions:   and   future   manpower   needs   of   the   organization;   maintain  
11.1. Support   the   search   and   examination   activities   of   the   high   morale   and   favorable   employee   attitudes   towards   the  
Office  through  the  following  activities:   organization   through   the   continuing   design   and  
(a) Maintain   and   upkeep   classification   systems   whether   implementation  of  employee  development  programs.  (n)  
they   be   national   or   international   such   as   the    
International  Patent  Classification  (IPC)  system;   Sec.  14.  Use  of  Intellectual  Property  Rights  Fees  by  the  IPO.  
(b) Provide   advisory   services   for   the   determination   of   14.1. For  a  more  effective  and  expeditious  implementation  of  
search  patterns;   this   Act,   the   approval   from   any   government   agency,   and  
(c) Maintain   search   files   and   search   rooms   and   reference   subject   only   to   the   existing   accounting   and   auditing   rules   and  
libraries;  and   regulations,   all   the   fees,   fines,   royalties   and   other   charges,  
(d) Adapt  and  package  industrial  property  information.   collected  by  the  Office  under  this  Act  and  the  other  laws  that  
  the   Office   will   be   mandated   to   administer,   for   use   in   its  
11.2. Establish   networks   or   intermediaries   or   regional   operations,   like   upgrading   of   its   facilities,   equipment   outlay,  
representatives;   human   resource   development,   and   the   acquisition   of   the  
11.3. Educate   the   public   and   build   awareness   on   intellectual   appropriate   office   space,   among   others,   to   improve   the  
property   through   the   conduct   of   seminars   and   lectures,   and   delivery  of  its  services  to  the  public.  This  amount,  which  shall  
other  similar  activities;   be   in   addition   to   the   Office's   annual   budget,   shall   be  
11.4. Establish   working   relations   with   research   and   deposited   and   maintained   in   a   separate   account   or   fund,  
development   institutions   as   well   as   with   local   and   which   may   be   used   or   disbursed   directly   by   the   Director  
international   intellectual   property   professional   groups   and   General.  
the  like;   14.2. After  five  (5)  years  from  the  coming  into  force  of  this  Act,  
11.5. Perform  state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art  searches;   the   Director   General   shall,   subject   to   the   approval   of   the  
11.6. Promote   the   use   of   patent   information   as   an   effective   Secretary   of   Trade   and   Industry,   determine   if   the   fees   and  
tool   to   facilitate   the   development   of   technology   in   the   charges   mentioned   in   Subsection   14.1   hereof   that   the   Office  
country;   shall  collect  are  sufficient  to  meet  its  budgetary  requirements.  
11.7. Provide   technical,   advisory,   and   other   services   relating   If   so,   it   shall   retain   all   the   fees   and   charges   it   shall   collect  
to   the   licensing   and   promotion   of   technology,   and   carry   out   under   the   same   conditions   indicated   in   said   Subsection   14.1  
an   efficient   and   effective   program   for   technology   transfer;   but   shall   forthwith,   cease   to   receive   any   funds   from   the  
and   annual   budget   of   the   National   Government;   if   not,   the  
11.8. Register   technology   transfer   arrangements,   and   settle   provisions  of  said  Subsection  14.1  shall  continue  to  apply  until  
disputes  involving  technology  transfer  payments.  (n)   such  time  when  the  Director  General,  subject  to  the  approval  
  of   the   Secretary   of   Trade   and   Industry,   certifies   that   the  
Sec.  12.  The  Management  Information  Services  and  EDP  Bureau.   above   stated   fees   and   charges   the   Office   shall   collect   are  
-­‐  The  Management  Information  Services  and  EDP  Bureau  shall:   enough  to  fund  its  operations.  (n).  
12.1. Conduct   automation   planning,   research   and    
development,   testing   of   systems,   contracts   with   firms,   Sec.  15.  Special  Technical  and  Scientific  Assistance.   -­‐   The   Director  
contracting,  purchase  and  maintenance  of  equipment,  design   General   is   empowered   to   obtain   the   assistance   of   technical,  
and  maintenance  of  systems,  user  consultation,  and  the  like;   scientific   or   other   qualified   officers   and   employees   of   other  
and   departments,   bureaus,   offices,   agencies   and   instrumentalities   of  
12.2. Provide  management  information  support  and  service  to   the   Government,   including   corporations   owned,   controlled   or  
the  Office.  (n)   operated   by   the   Government,   when   deemed   necessary   in   the  
  consideration   of   any   matter   submitted   to   the   Office   relative   to   the  
Sec.   13.   The   Administrative,   Financial   and   Human   Resource   enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act.  (Sec.  3,  R.A.  No.  165a)  
Development  Service  Bureau.    
13.1. The  Administrative  Service  shall:   Sec.  16.  Seal  of  Office.   -­‐   The   Office   shall   have   a   seal,   the   form   and  
(a) Provide  services  relative  to  procurement  and  allocation  of   design   of   which   shall   be   approved   by   the   Director   General.   (Sec.   4,  
supplies   and   equipment,   transportation,   messengerial   R.A.No.  165a)  
work,   cashiering,   payment   of   salaries   and   other   Office's    
obligations,   office   maintenance,   proper   safety   and   Pest  Management  Association  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Fertilizer  and  
security,   and   other   utility   services;   and   comply   with   Pesticide  Authority  GR  15604,  February  21,  2007  
government   regulatory   requirements   in   the   areas   of   Facts:    
performance   appraisal,   compensation   and   benefits,   The   case   commenced   upon   PMAP’s   filing   of   a   Petition   For  
employment  records  and  reports;     Declaratory   Relief   With   Prayer   For   Issuance   Of   A   Writ   Of  
(b) Receive   all   applications   filed   with   the   Office   and   collect   Preliminary   Injunction   And/Or   Temporary   Restraining   Order   with  
fees  therefore;  and   the   RTC   on   January   4,   2002.   Petitioner,   a   non-­‐stock   corporation  
(c) Publish   patent   applications   and   grants,   trademark   duly  organized  and  existing  under  the  laws  of  the  Philippines,  is  an  
applications,   and  registration   of   marks,   industrial   designs,   association   of   pesticide   handlers   duly   licensed   by   respondent  
utility  models,  geographic  indication,  and  lay-­‐out-­‐designs   Fertilizer   and   Pesticide   Authority   (FPA).   It   questioned   the   validity  
of  integrated  circuits  registrations.   of   Section   3.12   of   the   1987   Pesticide   Regulatory   Policies   and  
  Implementing  Guidelines,  which  provides  thus:  
13.2. The  Patent  and  Trademark  Administration  Services  shall   3.12   Protection   of   Proprietary   Data.   Data   submitted   to  
perform  the  following  functions  among  others:   support  the  first  full  or  conditional  registration  of  a  pesticide  
(a) Maintain   registers   of   assignments,   mergings,   licenses,   active   ingredient   in   the   Philippines   will   be   granted  
and  bibliographic  on  patents  and  trademarks;   proprietary  protection  for  a  period  of  seven  years  from  the  
(b) Collect   maintenance   fees,   issue   certified   copies   of   date   of   such   registration.   During   this   period   subsequent  
documents   in   its   custody   and   perform   similar   other   registrants   may   rely   on   these   data   only   with   third   party  
activities;  and   authorization   or   otherwise   must   submit   their   own   data.  
(c) Hold  in  custody  all  the  applications  filed  with  the  office,   After   this   period,   all   data   may   be   freely   cited   in   support   of  
and   all   patent   grants,   certificate   of   registrations   issued   registration   by   any   applicant,   provided   convincing   proof   is  
by  the  office,  and  the  like.   submitted   that   the   product   being   registered   is   identical   or  
  substantially   similar   to   any   current   registered   pesticide,   or  
13.3. The   Financial   Service   shall   formulate   and   manage   a   differs  only  in  ways  that  would  not  significantly  increase  the  
financial   program   to   ensure   availability   and   proper   utilization   risk  of  unreasonable  adverse  effects.  
of   funds;   provide   for   an   effective   monitoring   system   of   the    
financial  operations  of  the  Office;  and   Issue:    
Whether   or   not   FPA   encroach   upon   the   jurisdiction   of   the   FIRST  ISSUE:  Yes,  the  IPO  (an  administrative  body)  has  jurisdiction  
Intellectual  Property  Office?   in   cases   involving   provisions   of   the   IPC   (e.g.   unfair   competition)  
  due  to  the  following  reasons:  
Held:    
 There   is   no   encroachment   upon   the   powers   of   the   IPO   granted   Section   10   of   the   Intellectual   Property   Code   specifically  
under  R.A.  No.  8293,  otherwise  known  as  the  Intellectual  Property   identifies  the  functions  of  the  Bureau  of  Legal  Affairs,  thus:  
Code   of   the   Philippines.   Section   5   thereof   enumerates   the   Section  10.  The  Bureau  of  Legal  Affairs.“The  Bureau  of  Legal  
functions   of   the   IPO.   Nowhere   in   said   provision   does   it   state   nor   Affairs  shall  have  the  following  functions:  
can   it   be   inferred   that   the   law   intended   the   IPO   to   have   the    
exclusive   authority   to   protect   or   promote   intellectual   property   10.1   Hear   and   decide   opposition   to   the   application   for  
rights   in   the   Philippines.   On   the   contrary,   paragraph   (g)   of   said   registration  of  marks;  cancellation  of  trademarks;  subject  to  
Section  even  provides  that  the  IPO  shall  "[c]oordinate  with  other   the   provisions   of   Section   64,   cancellation   of   patents   and  
government   agencies   and   the   private   sector   efforts   to   formulate   utility   models,   and   industrial   designs;   and   petitions   for  
and  implement  plans  and  policies  to  strengthen  the  protection  of   compulsory  licensing  of  patents;  
intellectual  property  rights  in  the  country."  Clearly,  R.A.  No.  8293    
recognizes  that  efforts  to  fully  protect  intellectual  property  rights   10.2   (a)   Exercise   original   jurisdiction   in   administrative  
cannot   be   undertaken   by   the   IPO   alone.   Other   agencies   dealing   complaints   for   violations   of   laws   involving   intellectual  
with   intellectual   property   rights   are,   therefore,   not   precluded   property   rights;   Provided,   That   its   jurisdiction   is   limited   to  
from   issuing   policies,   guidelines   and   regulations   to   give   protection   complaints   where   the   total   damages   claimed   are   not   less  
to  such  rights.   than   Two   hundred   thousand   pesos   (P200,000):   Provided,  
Lastly,   FPA   emphasize   that   the   provision   on   protection   of   futher,   That   availment   of   the   provisional   remedies   may   be  
proprietary   data   does   not   usurp   the   functions   of   the   Intellectual   granted  in  accordance  with  the  Rules  of  Court.  Xxx  
Property   Office   (IPO)   since   a   patent   and   data   protection   are   two    
different  matters.  A  patent  prohibits  all  unlicensed  making,  using   xxx  
and  selling  of  a  particular  product,  while  data  protection  accorded   (vi)   The   cancellation   of   any   permit,   license,   authority,   or  
by   the   FPA   merely   prevents   copying   or   unauthorized   use   of   an   registration  which  may  have  been  granted  by  the  Office,  or  
applicant's  data,  but  any  other  party  may  independently  generate   the  suspension  of  the  validity  thereof  for  such  period  of  time  
and  use  his  own  data.  It  is  further  argued  that  under  Republic  Act   as  the  Director  of  Legal  Affairs  may  deem  reasonable  which  
No.   8293   (R.A.   No.   8293),   the   grant   of   power   to   the   IPO   to   shall  not  exceed  one  (1)  year;  
administer  and  implement  State  policies  on  intellectual  property  is   xxx  
not   exclusionary   as   the   IPO   is   even   allowed   to   coordinate   with   (viii)  The  assessment  of  damages;  
other  government  agencies  to  formulate  and  implement  plans  and    
policies  to  strengthen  the  protection  of  intellectual  property  rights.   Unquestionably,   petitioner’s   complaint,   which   seeks   the  
  cancellation  of  the  disputed  mark  in  the  name  of  respondent  
In-­‐N-­‐Out  Burger  Inc.,  vs.  Sehwani,  Incorporated  and/or  Benita’s   Sehwani,   Incorporated,   and   damages   for   violation   of  
Frites  Inc.,  Gr  No.  1792127,  December  24,  2008   petitioner’s   intellectual   property   rights,   falls   within   the  
Facts:     jurisdiction  of  the  IPO  Director  of  Legal  Affairs.  
Petitioner   IN-­‐N-­‐OUT   BURGER,   INC.,   is   a   business   entity    
incorporated   under   the   laws   of   California.   It   is   a   signatory   to   the   While   Section   163   thereof   vests   in   civil   courts   jurisdiction   over  
Convention   of   Paris   on   Protection   of   Industrial   Property   and   the   cases   of   unfair   competition,   nothing   in   the   said   section   states   that  
TRIPS  Agreement.  It  is  engaged  mainly  in  the  restaurant  business,   the   regular   courts   have   sole   jurisdiction   over   unfair   competition  
but  it  has  never  engaged  in  business  in  the  Philippines.   cases,  to  the  exclusion  of  administrative  bodies.  
  Sections   160   and   170,   which   are   also   found   under   Part   III   of   the  
Respondents   Sehwani,   Incorporated   and   Benita   Frites,   Inc.   are   Intellectual   Property   Code,   recognize   the   concurrent   jurisdiction  
corporations   organized   in   the   Philippines.   Sometime   in   1991,   of  civil  courts  and  the  IPO  over  unfair  competition  cases.  
Sehwani   filed   with   the   BPTTT   an   application   for   the   registration   of   These  two  provisions  read:  
the  mark  “IN  N  OUT  (the  inside  of  the  letter  “O”  formed  like  a  star).    
Its   application   was   approved   and   a   certificate   of   registration   was   Section  160.  Right  of  Foreign  Corporation  to  Sue  in  Trademark  or  
issued   in   its   name   on   1993.   In   2000,   Sehwani,   Incorporated   and   Service   Mark   Enforcement   Action.   Any   foreign   national   or   juridical  
Benita   Frites,   Inc.   entered   into   a   Licensing   Agreement,   wherein   person   who   meets   the   requirements   of   Section   3   of   this   Act   and  
the   former   entitled   the   latter   to   use   its   registered   mark,   “IN   N   does  not  engage  in  business  in  the  Philippines  may  bring  a  civil  or  
OUT.”   administrative   action   hereunder   for   opposition,   cancellation,  
  infringement,   unfair   competition,   or   false   designation   of   origin  
Sometime   in   1997,   In-­‐N-­‐Out   Burger   filed   trademark   and   service   and  false  description,  whether  or  not  it  is  licensed  to  do  business  
mark   applications   with   the   Bureau   of   Trademarks   for   the   “IN-­‐N-­‐ in  the  Philippines  under  existing  laws.  
OUT”   and   “IN-­‐N-­‐OUT   Burger   &   Arrow   Design.   In   2000,   In-­‐N-­‐Out    
Burger   found   out   that   Sehwani,   Incorporated   had   already   Section  170.  Penalties.  Independent  of  the  civil  and  administrative  
obtained   Trademark   Registration   for   the   mark   “IN   N   OUT   (the   sanctions   imposed   by   law,   a   criminal   penalty   of   imprisonment  
inside   of   the   letter   “O”   formed   like   a   star).”   Also   in   2000,   In-­‐N-­‐Out   from   two   (2)   years   to   five   (5)   years   and   a   fine   ranging   from   Fifty  
Burger  sent  a  demand  letter  directing  Sehwani,  Inc.  to  cease  and   thousand   pesos   (P50,000)   to   Two   hundred   thousand   pesos  
desist   from   claiming   ownership   of   the   mark   “IN-­‐N-­‐OUT”   and   to   (P200,000),   shall   be   imposed   on   any   person   who   is   found   guilty   of  
voluntarily  cancel  its  trademark  registration.  Sehwani  Inc.  did  not   committing  any  of  the  acts  mentioned  in  Section  155,  Section168,  
accede   to   In-­‐N-­‐Out   Burger’s   demand   but   it   expressed   its   and  Subsection169.1.  
willingness  to  surrender  its  registration  for  a  consideration.    
  Based  on  the  foregoing  discussion,  the  IPO  Director  of  Legal  Affairs  
In  2001  In-­‐N-­‐Out  Burger  filed  before  the  Bureau  of  Legal  Affairs  an   had   jurisdiction   to   decide   the   petitioner’s   administrative   case  
administrative   complaint   against   the   Sehwani,   Inc.   and   Benita   against   respondents   and   the   IPO   Director   General   had   exclusive  
Frites,   Inc.   for   unfair   competition   and   cancellation   of   trademark   jurisdiction  over  the  appeal  of  the  judgment  of  the  IPO  Director  of  
registration.   Legal  Affairs.  
   
Issues:     SECOND   ISSUE:   Yes.   The   evidence   on   record   shows   that   Sehwani  
(1)   Whether   or   not   the   Intellectual   Property   Office   (an   Inc.   and   Benita   Frites   were   not   using   their   registered   trademark  
administrative  body)  have  jurisdiction  of  cases  involving  provisions   but   that   of   In-­‐n-­‐Out   Burger.   Sehwani   and   Benita   Frites   are   also  
of   the   IPC   (e.g.   unfair   competition).   (2)   [1]   Whether   or   not   there   giving   their   products   the   general   appearance   that   would   likely  
was  unfair  competition.   influence  the  purchasers  to  believe  that  their  products  are  that  of  
  In-­‐N-­‐Out   Burger.   The   intention   to   deceive   may   be   inferred   from  
Held:     the   similarity   of   the   goods   as   packed   and   offered   for   sale,   and,  
thus,   an   action   will   lie   to   restrain   unfair   competition.   The  
respondents’   frauduulent   intention   to   deceive   purchasers   is   also   c)  Is  there  forum  shopping  when  a  party  files  two  actions  with  two  
apparent  in  their  use  of  the  In-­‐N-­‐Out  Burger  in  business  signages.   seemingly   different   causes   of   action   and   yet   pray   for   the   same  
  relief?  
The  essential  elements  of  an  action  for  unfair  competition  are  (1)    
confusing   similarity   in   the   general   appearance   of   the   goods   and   (2)   Held:    
intent   to   deceive   the   public   and   defraud   a   competitor.   The   a)   No.   The   provision   of   R.A.   165,   from   which   the   Pfizer’s   patent  
confusing   similarity   may   or   may   not   result   from   similarity   in   the   was   based,   clearly   states   that   "[the]   patentee   shall   have   the  
marks,  but  may  result  from  other  external  factors  in  the  packaging   exclusive   right   to   make,   use   and   sell   the   patented   machine,   article  
or   presentation   of   the   goods.   The   intent   to   deceive   and   defraud   or   product,   and   to   use   the   patented   process   for   the   purpose   of  
may   be   inferred   from   the   similarity   of   the   appearance   of   the   industry  or  commerce,  throughout  the  territory  of  the  Philippines  
goods   as   offered   for   sale   to   the   public.   Actual   fraudulent   intent   for   the   term   of   the   patent;   and   such   making,   using,   or   selling   by  
need  not  be  shown.   any  person  without  the  authorization  of  the  patentee  constitutes  
  infringement  of  the  patent."  
[1]  IPO  –  Director  of  Legal  Affairs  decision    
In-­‐N-­‐Out   Burger   has   legal   capacity   to   sue   in   the   Philippines   Clearly,  the  patentee’s  exclusive  rights  exist  only  during  the  term  
because   the   latter   is   a   signatory   of   the   Convention   of   Paris   on   of  the  patent.  Since  the  patent  was  registered  on  16  July  1987,  it  
Protection  of  Industrial  Property.     expired,   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   R.A.   165,   after   17  
IN-­‐N-­‐OUT  Burger,  Inc.  –  right  to  use  its  tradename  and  mark  to  the   years,   or   16   July   2004.   Thus,   after   16   July   2004,   Pfizer   no   longer  
exclusion  of  the  others   possessed  the  exclusive  right  to  make,  use,  and  sell  the  products  
Respondents’   use   of   the   petitioner’s   mark   was   made   in   good   faith   covered   by   their   patent.   The   CA   was   wrong   in   issuing   a   temporary  
and  therefore  they  are  not  guilty  of  unfair  competition.   restraining  order  after  the  cut-­‐off  date.  
   
IPO  –  Director  General’s  Decision   b)  According  to  IP  Code,  the  Director  General  of  the  IPO  exercises  
Respondents  are  guilty  of  unfair  competition.   exclusive  jurisdiction  over  decisions  of  the  IPO-­‐BLA.  The  question  
The  following  are  ordered  to  be  paid  to  In-­‐N-­‐Out  Burger,  inc.   in   the   CA   concerns   an   interlocutory   order,   and   not   a   decision.  
Damages  in  the  amount  of  PHP  212,  574.28   Since  the  IP  Code  and  the  Rules  and  Regulations  are  bereft  of  any  
Exemplary  damages  in  the  amount  of  PHP  500,000   remedy   regarding   interlocutory   orders   of   the   IPO-­‐BLA,   the   only  
Attorney’s   fees   and   expenses   of   litigation   in   the   amount   of   PHP   remedy   available   to   Pfizer   is   to   apply   the   Rules   and   Regulations  
500,000   suppletorily.  Under  the  Rules,  a  petition  for  certiorari  to  the  CA  is  
  the  proper  remedy.  This  is  consistent  with  the  Rules  of  Court.  Thus,  
CA  Decision   the  CA  had  jurisdiction.  
Regular   courts,   and   not   the   BLA-­‐IPO,   have   sole   jurisdiction   to   hear    
and  decide  cases  involving  provisions  of  the  IPC.   c)   Yes.   Forum   shopping   is   defined   as   the   act   of   a   party   against  
  whom   an   adverse   judgment   has   been   rendered   in   one   forum,   of  
Phil  Pharmawealth,  Inc.  v.  Pfier,  Inc.  And  Pfizer  (Phil.)  Inc.,  GR  No.   seeking  another  (and  possibly  favorable)  opinion  in  another  forum  
167715,  November  17,  2010   (other   than   by   appeal   or   the   special   civil   action   of   certiorari),   or  
Facts:     the  institution  of  two  (2)  or  more  actions  or  proceedings  grounded  
Pfizer  is  the  registered  owner  of  a  patent  pertaining  to  Sulbactam   on  the  same  cause  on  the  supposition  that  one  or  the  other  court  
Ampicillin.   It   is   marketed   under   the   brand   name   “Unasyn.”   would  make  a  favorable  disposition.  
Sometime   in   January   and   February   2003,   Pfizer   discovered   that    
Pharmawealth   submitted   bids   for   the   supply   of   Sulbactam   The  elements  of  forum  shopping  are:  (a)  identity  of  parties,  or  at  
Ampicillin  to  several  hospitals  without  the  Pfizer’s  consent.  Pfizer   least   such   parties   that   represent   the   same   interests   in   both  
then  demanded  that  the  hospitals  cease  and  desist  from  accepting   actions;   (b)   identity   of   rights   asserted   and   reliefs   prayed   for,   the  
such   bids.   Pfizer   also   demanded   that   Pharmawealth   immediately   reliefs   being   founded   on   the   same   facts;   (c)   identity   of   the   two  
withdraw   its   bids   to   supply   Sulbactam   Ampicillin.   Pharmawealth   preceding   particulars,   such   that   any   judgment   rendered   in   the  
and  the  hospitals  ignored  the  demands.     other   action   will,   regardless   of   which   party   is   successful,   amount  
  to   res   judicata   in   the   action   under   consideration.   This   instance  
Pfizer  then  filed  a  complaint  for  patent  infringement  with  a  prayer   meets  these  elements.  
for  permanent  injunction  and  forfeiture  of  the  infringing  products.    
A  preliminary  injunction  effective  for  90  days  was  granted  by  the   The  parties  are  clearly  identical.  In  both  the  complaints  in  the  BLA-­‐
IPO’s   Bureau   of   Legal   Affairs   (IPO-­‐BLA).   Upon   expiration,   a   motion   IPO   and   RTC,   the   rights   allegedly   violated   and   the   acts   allegedly  
for  extension  filed  by  Pfizer  was  denied.  Pfizer  filed  a  Special  Civil   violative   of   such   rights   are   identical,   regardless   of   whether   the  
Action   for   Certiorari   in   the   Court   of   Appeals   (CA)   assailing   the   patents  on  which  the  complaints  were  based  are  different.  In  both  
denial.   cases,   the   ultimate   objective   of   Pfizer   was   to   ask   for   damages   and  
  to  permanently  prevent  Pharmawealth  from  selling  the  contested  
While   the   case   was   pending   in   the   CA,   Pfizer   filed   with   the   products.   Relevantly,   the   Supreme   Court   has   decided   that   the  
Regional  Trial  Court  of  Makati  (RTC)  a  complaint  for  infringement   filing   of   two   actions   with   the   same   objective,   as   in   this   instance,  
and   unfair   competition,   with   a   prayer   for   injunction.   The   RTC   constitutes  forum  shopping.  
issued   a   temporary   restraining   order,   and   then   a   preliminary    
injunction.   Owing   to   the   substantial   identity   of   parties,   reliefs   and   issues   in  
  the   IPO   and   RTC   cases,   a   decision   in   one   case   will   necessarily  
Pharmawealth   filed   a   motion   to   dismiss   the   case   in   the   CA,   on   the   amount  to  res  judicata  in  the  other  action.  
ground   of   forum   shopping.   Nevertheless,   the   CA   issued   a    
temporary   restraining   order.   Pharmawealth   again   filed   a   motion    
to  dismiss,  alleging  that  the  patent,  the  main  basis  of  the  case,  had   ADOPTION  OF  INTELLECTUAL  PROPERTY  POLICIES  -­‐  SEC  230  (NEW  
already   lapsed,   thus   making   the   case   moot,   and   that   the   CA   had   PROVISION  INTRODUCED  BY  RA  10372)  
no   jurisdiction   to   review   the   order   of   the   IPO-­‐BLA   because   this    
was   granted   to   the   Director   General.   The   CA   denied   all   the   SEC.   230.   Adoption   of   Intellectual   Property   (IP)   Policies.  –  Schools  
motions.   Pharmawealth   filed   a   petition   for   review   on   Certiorari   and   universities   shall   adopt   intellectual   property   policies   that  
with  the  Supreme  Court.   would  govern  the  use  and  creation  of  intellectual  property  with  the  
  purpose   of   safeguarding   the   intellectual   creations   of   the   learning  
Issues:     institution   and   its   employees,   and   adopting   locally-­‐established  
a)  Can  an  injunctive  relief  be  issued  based  on  an  action  of  patent   industry   practice   fair   use   guidelines.   These   policies   may   be  
infringement   when   the   patent   allegedly   infringed   has   already   developed  in  relation  to  licensing  agreements  entered  into  by  the  
lapsed?   learning  institution  with  a  collective  licensing  organization.  
b)   What   tribunal   has   jurisdiction   to   review   the   decisions   of   the    
Director  of  Legal  Affairs  of  the  Intellectual  Property  Office?    
 
 THE  LAW  ON  COPYRIGHT   Columbia  Pictures  vs.  CA,  261  SCRA  144  (1996)  
  Facts:    
1. DEFINITIONS  –  Sec.  171  -­‐  171.13  as  amended  by  RA  10372   Columbia   Pictures   lodged   a   formal   complaint   with   the   National  
  Bureau   of   Investigation   for   violation   of   PD   No.   49,   as   amended,  
SEC.   171.   Definitions.   -­‐   For   the   purpose   of   this   Act,   the   following   and  sought  its  assistance  in  their  anti-­‐film  piracy  drive.  Agents  of  
terms  have  the  following  meaning:   the   NBI   and   private   researchers   made   discreet   surveillance   on  
171.1. "Author"  is  the  natural  person  who  has  created  the  work;   various   video   establishments   in   Metro   Manila   including   Sunshine  
171.2. A   "collective   work"   is   a   work   which   has   been   created   by   Home  Video  Inc.  owned  and  operated  by  Danilo  A.  Pelindario.  
two  (2)  or  more  natural  persons  at  the  initiative  and  under   On  November  14,  1987,  NBI  Senior  Agent  Lauro  C.  Reyes  applied  
the  direction  of  another  with  the  understanding  that  it  will   for  a  search  warrant  with  the  court  a  quo  against  Sunshine  seeking  
be   disclosed   by   the   latter   under   his   own   name   and   that   the   seizure,   among   others,   of   pirated   video   tapes   of   copyrighted  
contributing  natural  persons  will  not  be  identified;   films   all   of   which   were   enumerated   in   a   list   attached   to   the  
171.3. "Communication   to   the   public"   or   "communicate   to   the   application;  and,  television  sets,  video  cassettes  and/or  laser  disc  
public"   means   any   communication   to   the   public,   including   recordings  equipment  and  other  machines  and  paraphernalia  used  
broadcasting,   rebroadcasting,   retransmitting   by   cable,   or   intended   to   be   used   in   the   unlawful   exhibition,   showing,  
broadcasting   and   retransmitting   by   satellite,   and   includes   reproduction,   sale,   lease   or   disposition   of   videograms   tapes   in   the  
the   making   of   a   work   available   to   the   public   by   wire   or   premises   above   described.   In   the   hearing   of   the   application,   NBI  
wireless   means   in   such   a   way   that   members   of   the   public   Senior  Agent  Lauro  C.  Reyes,  upon  questions  by  the   court   a   quo,  
may  access  these  works  from  a  place  and  time  individually   reiterated   in   substance   his   averments   in   his   affidavit.   His  
chosen  by  them;   testimony   was   corroborated   by   another   witness,   Mr.   Rene   C.  
  Baltazar.   Atty.   Rico   V.   Domingo’s   deposition   was   also   taken.   On  
2. PROTECTION,  WHEN  COMMENCED  -­‐  SEC  172.2   the   basis   of   the   affidavits   and   depositions   of   NBI   Senior   Agent  
  Lauro  C.  Reyes,  Rene  C.  Baltazar  and  Atty.  Rico  V.  Domingo,  Search  
Sec.  172.2.  Works  are  protected  by  the  sole  fact  of  their  creation,   Warrant   No   87-­‐053   for   violation   of   Section   56   of   PD   No.   49,   as  
irrespective   of   their   mode   or   form   of   expression,   as   well   as   of   their   amended,  was  issued  by  the  court  a  quo.  
content,  quality  and  purpose.  (Sec.  2,  P.D.  No.  49a)   NBI   Agents   found   and   seized   various   video   tapes   of   duly  
  copyrighted   motion   pictures/films   owned   or   exclusively  
3. IDEA/EXPRESSION  DICHOTOMY  -­‐  SEC  175   distributed   by   private   complainants,   and   machines,   equipment,  
  television   sets,   paraphernalia,   materials,   accessories   all   of   which  
Sec.   175.   Unprotected   Subject   Matter.   -­‐   Notwithstanding   the   were   included   in   the   receipt   for   properties   accomplished   by   the  
provisions   of   Section   172   and   173,   no   protection   shall   extend,   raiding  team.  Copy  of  the  receipt  was  furnished  and/or  tendered  
under   this   law,   to   any   idea,   procedure,   system,   method   or   to   Mr.   Danilo   A.   Pelindario,   registered   owner-­‐proprietor   of  
operation,  concept,  principle,  discovery  or  mere  data  as  such,  even   Sunshine  Home  Video.  
if  they  are  expressed,  explained,  illustrated  or  embodied  in  a  work;    
news   of   the   day   and   other   miscellaneous   facts   having   the   Issue:  
character  of  mere  items  of  press  information;  or  any  official  text  of    Whether   or   not   absence   such   registration,   as   in   this   case,   there  
a  legislative,  administrative  or  legal  nature,  as  well  as  any  official   was   no   right   created,   hence,   no   infringement   under   PD   49   as  
translation  thereof.  (n)   amended?  
   
4. WORKS  PROTECTED   Held:    
a. Literary  or  Artistic  Works  -­‐  Sec  172  -­‐172.2   As   correctly   pointed   out   by   private   complainants-­‐oppositors,   the  
  Department  of  Justice  has  resolved  this  legal  question  as  far  back  
Sec.  172.  Literary  and  Artistic  Works.  -­‐  172.1  Literary  and  artistic   as  December  12,  1978  in  its  Opinion  No.  191  of  the  then  Secretary  
works,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  "works",  are  original  intellectual   of  Justice  Vicente  Abad  Santos  which  stated  that  Sections  26  and  
creations   in   the   literary   and   artistic   domain   protected   from   the   50   do   not   apply   to   cinematographic   works   and   PD   No.   49   “had  
moment  of  their  creation  and  shall  include  in  particular:   done   away   with   the   registration   and   deposit   of   cinematographic  
(a) Books,  pamphlets,  articles  and  other  writings;   works”  and  that  “even  without  prior  registration  and  deposit  of  a  
(b) Periodicals  and  newspapers;   work   which   may   be   entitled   to   protection   under   the   Decree,   the  
(c) Lectures,   sermons,   addresses,   dissertations   prepared   for   oral   creator   can   file   action   for   infringement   of   its   rights.”   He   cannot  
delivery,  whether  or  not  reduced  in  writing  or  other  material   demand,  however,  payment  of  damages  arising  from  infringement.  
form;   The  same  opinion  stressed  that  “the  requirements  of  registration  
(d) Letters;   and   deposit   are   thus   retained   under   the   Decree,   not   as   conditions  
(e) Dramatic   or   dramatico-­‐musical   compositions;   choreographic   for   the   acquisition   of   copyright   and   other   rights,   but   as  
works  or  entertainment  in  dumb  shows;   prerequisites  to  a  suit  for  damages.”  The  statutory  interpretation  
(f) Musical  compositions,  with  or  without  words;   of   the   Executive   Branch   being   correct,   is   entitled   (to)   weight   and  
(g) Works   of   drawing,   painting,   architecture,   sculpture,   respect.  
engraving,   lithography   or   other   works   of   art;   models   or   Furthermore,  a  closer  review  of  Presidential  Decree  No.  49  reveals  
designs  for  works  of  art;   that  even  with  respect  to  works  which  are  required  under  Section  
(h) Original   ornamental   designs   or   models   for   articles   of   26  thereof  to  be  registered  and  with  copies  to  be  deposited  with  
manufacture   whether   or   not   registrable   as   an   industrial   the   National   Library,   such   as   books,   including   composite   and  
design,  and  other  works  of  applied  art;   cyclopedic   works,   manuscripts,   directories   and   gazetteers;   and  
(i) Illustrations,   maps,   plans,   sketches,   charts   and   three-­‐ periodicals,   including   pamphlets   and   newspapers;   lectures,  
dimensional   works   relative   to   geography,   topography,   sermons,   addresses,   dissertations   prepared   for   oral   delivery;   and  
architecture  or  science;   letters,   the   failure   to   comply   with   said   requirements   does   not  
(j) Drawings  or  plastic  works  of  a  scientific  or  technical  character;   deprive  the  copyright  owner  of  the  right  to  sue  for  infringement.  
(k) Photographic   works   including   works   produced   by   a   process   Such  non-­‐compliance  merely  limits  the  remedies  available  to  him  
analogous  to  photography;  lantern  slides;   and  subjects  him  to  the  corresponding  sanction.  
(l) Audiovisual   works   and   cinematographic   works   and   works   The  reason  for  this  is  expressed  in  Section  2  of  the  decree  which  
produced   by   a   process   analogous   to   cinematography   or   any   prefaces  its  enumeration  of  copyrightable  works  with  the  explicit  
process  for  making  audio-­‐visual  recordings;   statement   that   “the   rights   granted   under   this   Decree   shall,   from  
(m) Pictorial  illustrations  and  advertisements;   the   moment   of   creation,   subsist   with   respect   to   any   of   the  
(n) Computer  programs;  and   following   classes   of   works.”   This   means   that   under   the   present  
(o) Other  literary,  scholarly,  scientific  and  artistic  works.     state   of   the   law,   the   copyright   for   a   work   is   acquired   by   an  
  intellectual   creator   from   the   moment   of   creation   even   in   the  
172.2.   Works   are   protected   by   the   sole   fact   of   their   creation,   absence   of   registration   and   deposit.   As   has   been   authoritatively  
irrespective   of   their   mode   or   form   of   expression,   as   well   as   of   their   clarified:  
content,  quality  and  purpose.  (Sec.  2,  P.D.  No.  49a)   The   registration   and   deposit   of   two   complete   copies   or  
  reproductions   of   the   work   with   the   National   Library   within   three  
weeks   after   the   first   public   dissemination   or   performance   of   the   greater   part   thereof   in   the   work   published   by   him   and   entitled  
work,  as  provided  for  in  Section  26  (P.D.  No.  49,  as  amended),  is   Diccionariong  Kastila-­‐Tagalog  (Spanish-­‐Tagalog  Dictionary).    
not  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  copyright  of  the  work,  but  rather    
to  avoid  the  penalty  for  non-­‐compliance  of  the  deposit  of  said  two   The   act   of   Pagliwanan   is   a   violation   of   article   7   of   the   Law   of  
copies  and  in  order  to  recover  damages  in  an  infringement  suit.   January   10,   1879,   on   Intellectual   Property,   caused   irreparable  
  injuries   to   Laktaw   who   was   surprised   when,   on   publishing   his   new  
Ching  vs.  Salinas,  GR  No.  161295,  June  29,  2005   work   entitled   Diccionario   Tagalog-­‐Hispano   (Tagalog-­‐Spanish  
Facts:   Dictionary)   he   learned   of   the   fact,   and     that   the   damages  
 Jessie   G.   Ching   is   the   owner   and   general   manager   of   Jeshicris   occasioned   to   him   by   the   publication   of   Paglinawan's   work  
Manufacturing   Co.,   the   maker   and   manufacturer   of   a   Utility   amounted   to   $10,000.   Laktaw   prayed   the   court   to   order   the  
Model,   described   as   “Leaf   Spring   Eye   Bushing   for   Automobile”   Paglinawan   to   withdraw   from   sale   all   stock   of   the   work   of  
made   up   of   plastic.   On   September   4,   2001,   Ching   and   Joseph   Yu   Paglinawan  to  pay  him  the  sum  of  $10,000,  with  costs.    
were   issued   by   the   National   Library   Certificates   of   Copyright   Paglinawan   in   his   answer   denied   generally   each   and   every  
Registration   and   Deposit   of   the   said   work   described   therein   as   allegation   of   the   complaint   and   prayed   the   court   to   absolve   him  
“Leaf  Spring  Eye  Bushing  for  Automobile.”     from  the  complaint.    
On   September   20,   2001,   Ching   requested   the   National   Bureau   of    
Investigation   (NBI)   for   police/investigative   assistance   for   the   Law:   Article   7   of   the   Law   of   January   10,   1879,   on   Intellectual  
apprehension   and   prosecution   of   illegal   manufacturers,   producers   Property:  Nobody  may  reproduce  another  person's  work  without  
and/or  distributors  of  the  works.  After  due  investigation,  the  NBI   the  owner's  consent,  even  merely  to  annotate  or  add  anything  to  
filed  applications  for  search  warrants  in  the  RTC  of  Manila  against   it,  or  improve  any  edition  thereof.    
William  Salinas,  Sr.  and  the  officers  and  members  of  the  Board  of    
Directors  of  Wilaware  Product  Corporation.  It  was  alleged  that  the   Issue:    
respondents   therein   reproduced   and   distributed   the   said   models   Whether   or   not   Paglinawan   violated   Article   7   of   the   Intellectual  
penalized   under   Sections   177.1   and   177.3   of   Republic   Act   (R.A.)   Property  Law  (1879)?    
No.  8293.      
  Held:    
Issue:     Yes,  Paglinawan  violated  Article  7  of  Intellectual  Property  Law.  It  is  
Whether  or  not  the  subject  matter  is  covered  by  the  Copyright  of   not  necessary  that  a  work  should  be  an  improper  copy  of  another  
the  Intellectual  Property  Code?     work   previously   published.   It   is   enough   that   another's   work   has  
  been  reproduced  without  the  consent  of  the  owner,  even  though  
Held:   it  be  only  to  annotate,  add  something  to  it,  or  improve  any  edition  
 It   is   worthy   to   state   that   the   works   protected   under   the   Law   on   thereof.  
Copyright   are:   literary   or   artistic   works   (Sec.   172)   and   derivative    
works   (Sec.   173).   The   Leaf   Spring   Eye   Bushing   and   Vehicle   Bearing   c. Published  Edition  of  work  -­‐  Sec  174  
Cushion  fall  on  neither  classification.      
Being   plain   automotive   spare   parts   that   must   conform   to   the   Sec.   174.   Published   Edition   of   Work.   -­‐  In  addition  to  the  right  to  
original  structural  design  of  the  components  they  seek  to  replace,   publish   granted   by   the   author,   his   heirs   or   assigns,   the   publisher  
the   Leaf   Spring   Eye   Bushing   and   Vehicle   Bearing   Cushion   are   not   shall   have   a   copyright   consisting   merely   of   the   right   of  
ornamental.   They   lack   the   decorative   quality   or   value   that   must   reproduction   of   the   typographical   arrangement   of   the   published  
characterize   authentic   works   of   applied   art.   They   are   not   even   edition  of  the  work.  (n)  
artistic   creations   with   incidental   utilitarian   functions   or   works    
incorporated   in   a   useful   article.   In   actuality,   the   personal   5. WORKS  NOT  PROTECTED  -­‐  SEC  175  
properties  described  in  the  search  warrants  are  mechanical  works,    
the   principal   function   of   which   is   utility   sans   any   aesthetic    
embellishment.     Sec.   175.   Unprotected   Subject   Matter.   -­‐   Notwithstanding   the  
Neither  are  we  to  regard  the  Leaf  Spring  Eye  Bushing  and  Vehicle   provisions   of   Section   172   and   173,   no   protection   shall   extend,  
Bearing  Cushion  as  included  in  the  catch-­‐all  phrase  “other  literary,   under   this   law,   to   any   idea,   procedure,   system,   method   or  
scholarly,   scientific   and   artistic   works”   in   Section   172.1(a)   of   R.A.   operation,  concept,  principle,  discovery  or  mere  data  as  such,  even  
No.  8293.  Applying  the  principle  of  ejusdem  generis  which  states   if  they  are  expressed,  explained,  illustrated  or  embodied  in  a  work;  
that  “where  a  statute  describes  things  of  a  particular  class  or  kind   news   of   the   day   and   other   miscellaneous   facts   having   the  
accompanied   by   words   of   a   generic   character,   the   generic   word   character  of  mere  items  of  press  information;  or  any  official  text  of  
will   usually   be   limited   to   things   of   a   similar   nature   with   those   a  legislative,  administrative  or  legal  nature,  as  well  as  any  official  
particularly  enumerated,  unless  there  be  something  in  the  context   translation  thereof.  (n)  
of   the   state   which   would   repel   such   inference,”[46]   the   Leaf    
Spring   Eye   Bushing   and   Vehicle   Bearing   Cushion   are   not   a. Unprotected  Subject  Matter  (sec.  175)  
copyrightable,  being  not  of  the  same  kind  and  nature  as  the  works    
enumerated  in  Section  172  of  R.A.  No.  8293.   SEC.   175.   Unprotected   Subject   Matter.   -­‐   Notwithstanding   the  
  provisions   of   Section   172   and   173,   no   protection   shall   extend,  
b. Derivative  Works  -­‐  Sec  173   under   this   law,   to   any   idea,   procedure,   system,   method   or  
  operation,  concept,  principle,  discovery  or  mere  data  as  such,  even  
Sec.   173.   Derivative   Works.   –   173.1.   The   following   derivative   if  they  are  expressed,  explained,  illustrated  or  embodied  in  a  work;  
works  shall  also  be  protected  by  copyright:   news   of   the   day   and   other   miscellaneous   facts   having   the  
(a) Dramatizations,   translations,   adaptations,   abridgments,   character  of  mere  items  of  press  information;  or  any  official  text  of  
arrangements,   and   other   alterations   of   literary   or   artistic   a  legislative,  administrative  or  legal  nature,  as  well  as  any  official  
works;  and   translation  thereof.  
(b) Collections   of   literary,   scholarly   or   artistic   works,   and    
compilations   of   data   and   other   materials   which   are   original   Joaquin,  Jr.  vs.  Drilon,  302  SCRA  225  (1999)  
by  reason  of  the  selection  or  coordination  or  arrangement  of   Facts    
their  contents.  (Sec.  2,  [P]  and  [Q],  P.D.  No.  49)   Petitioner   BJ   Productions,   Inc.   (BJPI)   is   the   holder/grantee   of  
  Certificate   of   Copyright   No.   M922,   dated   January   28,   1971,   of  
Laktaw  vs.  Paglinawan,  44  Phil.  855  (1918)   Rhoda  and  Me,  a  dating  game  show  aired  from  1970  to  1977.    
Facts:     On   June   28,   1973,   petitioner   BJPI   submitted   to   the   National  
Laktaw   is   the   registered   owner   and   author   of   a   literary   work   Library   an   addendum   to   its   certificate   of   copyright   specifying   the  
entitled  Diccionario  Hispano-­‐Tagalog  (Spanish-­‐Tagalog  Dictionary)   show’s  format  and  style  of  presentation.    
published   in   the   City   of   Manila   in   1889   by   the   printing   On   July   14,   1991,   while   watching   television,   petitioner   Francisco  
establishment   La   Opinion.   Paglinawan   without   the   consent   of   Joaquin,  Jr.,  president  of  BJPI,  saw  on  RPN  Channel  9  an  episode  of  
Laktaw,   reproduced   said   literary   work,   improperly   copied   the   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   be   shared.   You   cannot   over   emphasize   that   point.   Ideas,   are  
BJPI   had   a   copyright   to   Rhoda   and   Me   and   demanding   that   IXL   meant  to  be  shared.    
discontinue  airing  It’s  a  Date.      
In   a   letter,   dated   July   19,   1991,   private   respondent   Zosa   But   how   do   we   encourage   the   flow   of   idea   on   one   person   to  
apologized   to   petitioner   Joaquin   and   requested   a   meeting   to   another   to   ensure   that,   to   a   certain   extent,   will   protect   your  
discuss   a   possible   settlement.   IXL,   however,   continued   airing   It’s   a   interest   to   a   limited?   it   has   to   be   included,   to   as   system   of  
Date,  prompting  petitioner  Joaquin  to  send  a  second  letter  on  July   protection.   It   has   to   be   emphasized   that   the   protection   is   for   a  
25,  1991  in  which  he  reiterated  his  demand  and  warned  that,  if  IXL   limited  period.  Diba  in  Sec  2?  For  a  specific  period  only.  After  that,  
did  not  comply,  he  would  endorse  the  matter  to  his  attorneys  for   ideas,   the   content   itself,   both   the   idea   and   expression   become  
proper  legal  action.     part  of  the  public  domain.  So  we  have  to  always  bear  in  mind  how  
Meanwhile,   private   respondent   Zosa   sought   to   register   IXL’s   these  principles  are  being  applied  in  practice.  
copyright   to   the   first   episode   of   “It’s   a   Date”   for   which   it   was    
issued  by  the  National  Library  a  certificate  of  copyright  on  August   Here  is  a  party  claiming  a  proprietary  right  of  a  format  of  a  show,  
14,  1991.     which   is   something   new,   very   novel.   It   is   a   dating   game   show  
Upon   complaint   of   petitioners,   information   for   violation   of   P.D.   which  has  not  been  done  before,  at  least  in  the  PH.  The  objective  
No.   49   was   filed   against   private   respondent   Zosa   together   with   of   the   show   is   to   find   a   match   for   a   person   in   the   show   who   is  
certain  officers  of  RPN  Channel  9,  namely,  William  Esposo,  Felipe   called  a  searcher  among  three  possible  choices,  he  will  not  be  able  
Medina,   and   Casey   Francisco,   in   the   Regional   Trial   Court   of   to  see  them  in  person  because  they  are  not  shown  to  the  searcher.  
Quezon  City.     But   through   questions,   asking   questions   to   these   possible   choices,  
  he   would   now   make   a   decision   as   to   who   he   is   most   compatible  
Issue     with.  That  is  the  objective.  That  is  the  right  they  are  complaining.  
Whether  the  format  or  mechanics  of  Joaquin’s  television  show  is   Through   this   format,   they   are   able   to   make   a   show   but,   what   is  
entitled  to  copyright  protection?     interesting   about   this   is   that   they   have   already   taped   several  
  programs   but   was   not   aired   in   the   tv.   Here   comes   another  
Held     producer,   somehow   got   the   idea   from   the   former   producer,  
No,  the  format  or  mechanics  of  a  television  show  is  not  included  in   applying   the   same   format.   Obviously,   it   would   be   unfair   to   the  
the  list  of  protected  works  in  §2  of  P.D.  No.  49.  For  this  reason,  the   part   of   the   producers   who   conceptualized   the   format.   So   they  
protection  afforded  by  the  law  cannot  be  extended  to  cover  them.     filed  a  case  against  the  other  producer,  claiming  the  infringement  
The  essence  of  copyright  infringement  is  the  copying,  in  whole  or   in   copying   their   idea   and   format.   Under   the   principles   of   equity,  
in   part,   of   copyrightable   materials   as   defined   and   enumerated   in   they  will  be  say  it  is  unfair.    Unfortunately,  the  law  is  not  on  their  
Section   2   of   PD.   No.   49.   Apart   from   the   manner   in   which   it   is   side.   The   concept   is,   an   idea   is   not   covered   by   copyright  
actually   expressed,   however,   the   idea   of   a   dating   game   show   is,   in   protection.   However   the   idea   is   very   novel,   it   will   not   be  
the   opinion   of   this   Office,   a   non-­‐copyrightable   material.   Ideas,   copyrightable.    
concepts,  formats,  or  schemes  in  their  abstract  form  clearly  do  not    
fall  within  the  class  of  works  or  materials  susceptible  of  copyright   Just  like  what  happened  in  the  case  of  Pearl  and  Dean.  There  was  
registration  as  provided  in  PD.  No.  49.     ruling   in   the   SC   of   the   US   in   the   case   of   Baker   v   Selden   another  
Copyright,   in   the   strict   sense   of   the   term,   is   purely   a   statutory   landmark   ruling   of   the   SC.   There   was   new   method   of   bookkeeping  
right.  It  is  a  new  or  independent  right  granted  by  the  statute,  and   and   audit   procedure   for   accountants   published   by   an   accountant  
not   simply   a   pre-­‐existing   right   regulated   by   the   statute.   Being   a   himself,   Mr.   Baker.   He   noticed   that   the   same   bookkeeping   system  
statutory   grant,   the   rights   are   only   such   as   the   statute   confers,   was   used   by   another   accountant,   Mr.   Selden.   When   Mr.   Baker  
and   may   be   obtained   and   enjoyed   only   with   respect   to   the   learned   that   the   new   system   was   applied,   he   filed   a   case   for  
subjects   and   by   the   persons,   and   on   terms   and   conditions   copyright   infringement.   The   court   said,   the   idea   is   the   one   being  
specified  in  the  statute.     used.  Mr.  Selden  did  not  copy  the  expression,  only  the  idea.  
P.D.   No.   49,   §2,   in   enumerating   what   are   subject   to   copyright,    
refers   to   finished   works   and   not   to   concepts.   The   copyright   does   So  what  are  the  items  identified  by  the  law?  The  idea,  procedure,  
not   extend   to   an   idea,   procedure,   process,   system,   method   of   system,   method   or   operation,   concept,   principle,   discovery,  
operation,  concept,  principle,  or  discovery,  regardless  of  the  form   emphasizing  the  principle  that  the  basis  for  copyright  is  creation.  
in  which  it  is  described,  explained,  illustrated,  or  embodied  in  such   You  have  the  create  something,  because  if  you  just  discovered  it,  
work.     such  as  historical  fact,  it  will  not  be  copyrightable.  Or  mere  data  as  
What  then  is  the  subject  matter  of  petitioners’  copyright?     such,   remember   in   the   case   of   Feist   Publication?   A   telephone  
The  Court  is  of  the  opinion  that  petitioner  BJPI’s  copyright  covers   company.   Even   if   data   has   been   gathered   through   spending  
audio-­‐visual   recordings   of   each   episode   of   Rhoda   and   Me,   as   resources,   time,   and   expense   in   pain   staking   gathering   of  
falling   within   the   class   of   works   mentioned   in   P.D.   49,   §2(M),   to   information,  it  will  not  amount  to  a  copyright  protection  because  
wit:     there   is   no   protection   for   exerting   effort.   What   is   the   basis   of  
Cinematographic   works   and   works   produced   by   a   process   protection?  Creation.  And  how  would  you  discern  creation?  When  
analogous   to   cinematography   or   any   process   for   making   audio-­‐ there   is   an   application   of   modicum   degree   of   intelligence.   There  
visual  recordings;     must   be   an   effort   to   create   something.   When   you   gather   data,  
  there  is  no  creation  therein.    
Law      
Sec.   175.   Unprotected   Subject   Matter.   -­‐   Notwithstanding   the   What   about   new   of   the   day?   A   news   article   is   copyrightable.  
provisions   of   Sections   172   and   173,   no   protection   shall   extend,   However,   the   facts   included   in   the   news   article   are   not.   If   another  
under   this   law,   to   any   idea,   procedure,   system,   method   or   reporter   copies   your   news   article   verbatim,   that   is   copyright  
operation,   concept,   principle,   discovery   or   mere   data   as   such,   infringement.   But   if   he   just   based   his   article   on   your   facts,   it   will  
even   if   they   are   expressed,   explained,   illustrated   or   embodied   in   a   not  be  copyright  infringement.    
work;   news   of   the   day   and   other   miscellaneous   facts   having   the    
character   of   mere   items   of   press   information;   or   any   official   text   b. Works  of  Government  (sec.  176;  171.11)  
of   a   legislative,   administrative   or   legal   nature,   as   well   as   any    
official  translation  thereof.   SEC.   176.   Works   of   the   Government.   -­‐   176.1.   No   copyright   shall  
  subsist  in  any  work  of  the  Government  of  the  Philippines.  However,  
Atty:  So  this  gives  us  an  example  of  the  idea-­‐expression  principle   prior   approval   of   the   government   agency   or   office   wherein   the  
or   dichotomy.   As   what   we   have   been   discussing   since   the   work  is  created  shall  be  necessary  for  exploitation  of  such  work  for  
beginning   of   our   lecture,   ideas   or   in   keeping   with   the   primary   profit.  Such  agency  or  office  may,  among  other  things,  impose  as  a  
purpose   of   Intellectual   Property   Protection,   the   ultimate   objective   condition  the  payment  of  royalties.  No  prior  approval  or  conditions  
is   for   the   diffusion   of   knowledge.   To   support   that   principle,   as   shall  be  required  for  the  use  of  any  purpose  of  statutes,  rules  and  
developed   by   American   Jurisprudence,   it   is   for   the   progress   of   regulations,   and   speeches,   lectures,   sermons,   addresses,   and  
science  and  useful  art.  All  in  all,  to  promote  the  public  interest  of   dissertations,   pronounced,   read   or   rendered   in   courts   of   justice,  
the  shared  idea  or  information.  Shared  knowledge.  It  is  meant  to   before   administrative   agencies,   in   deliberative   assemblies   and   in  
meetings  of  public  character.  (Sec.  9,  first  par.,  P.D.  No.  49)  
    
How   would   you   define   works   of   government   in   the   definition   of   But   when   you   talk   about   copyright,   it   usually   refers   to   economic  
terms:   rights.  If  you  are  an  author,  if  you  are  trying  to  create  a  work,  what  
  is  your  primary  obligation?  What  are  the  possible  reasons  for  you  
171.11.  A  "work  of  the  Government  of  the  Philippines"  is  a  work   to   create   a   work?   Number   1   is   profit   or   maybe,   for   some,   to   share  
created   by   an   officer   or   employee   of   the   Philippine   Government   or   their   talents   in   the   arts.   More   often   that   not,   it’s   all   about   the  
any   of   its   subdivisions   and   instrumentalities,   including   money.   You   want   to   expect   a   return   for   your   labor.   That   is   what  
government-­‐owned   or   controlled   corporations   as   part   of   his   we   call   as,   economic   expectations.   Theses   sets   of   rights   address  
regularly  prescribed  official  duties.   the  interest  or  the  motivation.  For  your  to  be  entitled  to  the  right  
  or   economic   benefit   out   of   that   endeavor.   Considering   that   the  
So  that’s  how  you  classify  or  you  identify  whether  the  work  is  the   law   affords   protection   on   your   work.   You   are   confident   to  
work  of  the  government.  Even  if  the  subject  matter  is  a  creation  of   publish/share   your   work   expecting   that   your   rights   will   be  
an  author,  creator  of  a  work,  and  would  have  been  copyrightable,   adequately  protected.  In  the  end,  you  will  have  a  return  for  your  
nevertheless,   since   that   work   is   a   product   of   the   performance   of   efforts.    
his   regularly   prescribed   duties,   it   is   a   work   of   government   and   is    
not   protected   by   the   law.   So   SC   decision,   are   not   copyrightable.   Understanding  the  work  copyright,  it  practically  means  the  right  to  
Privileged   speeches   made   by   senators   or   law   makers-­‐   not   copy.  Always  remember  that.  That’s  why  the  fist  right  is  all  about  
copyrightable.     the  right  to  copy.  It  is  known  as  the  most  elemental  right  among  
  economic   rights.   So   what   is   that   first   right?   It   is   the   right   to  
But  does  that  mean  that  the  government  cannot  own  a  copyright?   reproduction   of   the   work,   or   substantial   portion   of   your   work.  
The   government   can   be   a   transferee   of   a   copyright   because   a   Why   is   right   to   reproduce   considered   as   an   economic   right?  
copyright   is   a   property.   So   it   may   be   a   beneficiary   of   a   donated   Especially   if   your   work   is   a   best   seller.   BTW,   before   that,   the  
copyrighted   material.   I’m   talking   about   the   copyright,   not   the   specific   acts   that   the   law   exclusively   (gives?)   to   the   copyright  
material  object.  The  rights   over  the  expression.  So  since  it  may   be   owner   are   the   following:   the   right   to   carry   out,   authorize,   and  
a   transferee   or   a   buyer,   the   government   can   also   impose   the   right   prevent.   These   are   the   specific   acts   that   belong   exclusively   to  
over  that  work.  if  your  remember  there  is  a  question  about,  can  a   copyright   owner.   Found   in   the   first   part   of   sec   177.   Copyrights   are  
work   be   exploited,   as   it   is   considered   as   owned   by   the   economic   rights   consist   of   the   exclusive   right   to   carry   out,  
government?   Yes,   because   there   is   no   copyright   protection.   authorize,  or  prevent.  What  do  you  mean  by  carry  out?  He  is  the  
However,  it  is  subject  to  regulation.     one  who  can  exclusively  perform  his  act.  When  you  say  exclusive,  
  only   the   author.   How   is   author   defined  under  the   law?   Who   owns  
SEC.  176.  Works  of  the  Government.  –     the   copyright?   The   law   says,   the   author.   But   this   is   not   the  
176.1.  No  copyright  shall  subsist  in  any  work  of  the  Government  of   absolute   rule   because   copyright   is   transferable   and   some   other  
the  Philippines.  However,  prior  approval  of  the  government  agency   exceptions  we  will  discuss  later.  It  is  not  automatic  that  the  author  
or   office   wherein   the   work   is   created   shall   be   necessary   for   owns  the  copyright.  But  as  a  general  rule,  the  copyright  ownership  
exploitation   of   such   work   for   profit.   Such   agency   or   office   may,   belongs   to   the   author.   Whoever   owns   the   copyright,   shall   have  
among   other   things,   impose   as   a   condition   the   payment   of   the  exclusive  right  to  carry  out,  to  authorize,  or  to  prevent.    
royalties.  No  prior  approval  or  conditions  shall  be  required  for  the    
use  of  any  purpose  of  statutes,  rules  and  regulations,  and  speeches,   We   have   mentioned   last   time   that   a   copyright   is   also   a   statutory  
lectures,  sermons,  addresses,  and  dissertations,  pronounced,  read   right.  Rights  that  are  identified  by  the  law,  and  the  only  source  is  
or  rendered  in  courts  of  justice,  before  administrative  agencies,  in   the  law.  That  is  where  you  derive  your  right.    
deliberative  assemblies    
  Copyright  is  the  right  of  reproduction  of  your  work  or  substantial  
That’s   why   sec.   176.1   says,   prior   approval   of   the   government   portion  of  your  work.  how  is  reproduction  defined?  
agency   or   office   wherein   the   work   is   created   shall   be   necessary   for    
exploitation   of   such   work   for   profit.   Such   agency   or   office   may,   171.9.   "Reproduction"   is   the   making   of   one   (1)   or   more   copies,  
among   other   things,   impose   as   a   condition   the   payment   of   temporary   or   permanent,   in   whole   or   in   part,   of   a   work   or   a   sound  
royalties.  No  prior  approval  or  conditions  shall  be  required  for  the   recording   in   any   manner   or   form   without   prejudice   to   the  
use  of  any  purpose  of  statutes,  rules…   provisions  of  Section  185  of  this  Act  (Sec.  41  [E],  P.D.  No.  49a).  
   
So   this   is   an   exception   to   the   rule   that   the   government   agencies   This   amendment   came   about   to   address   the   issue   of   the   act   of  
may  impose  regulations  (referring  to  the  last  sentence  of  176.1).     downloading   digital   copies.   Because   it   was   interposed   as   a  
  defense  that  is  not  actually  copying  if  it  is  not  permanently  saved  
176.2   The   author   of   speeches,   lectures,   sermons,   addresses,   and   in   the   drive   of   the   computer,   there   is   no   complete   act   of  
dissertations   mentioned   in   the   preceding   paragraphs   shall   have   reproduction.  It  is  just  temporarily  stored  in  the  RAM.  That  is  the  
the  exclusive  right  of  making  a  collection  of  his  works.   issue   that   was   raised   with   respect   to   the   act   of   copyright  
  infringement.   According   to   the   issue   raised,   it   has   to   be  
Have   you   heard   of   Justice   Isagani   Cruz?   He   made   a   collection   of   permanently   stored   to   make   it   a   complete   act   of   reproduction  
his   concurring   and   dissenting   opinions   in   the   SC   decision   and   because  there  is  no  attempted  phase  of  the  act.  According  to  the  
made  a  book.     defense,   the   act   of   reproduction   should   be   on   its   consummated  
  phase.   Since   it   is   a   penal   law,   and   a   penal   law   should   be  
176.3   the   Government   is   not   precluded   from   receiving   and   holding   interpreted,   all   doubts   should   be   resolved   in   favor   of   the   accused.  
copyrights   transferred   to   it   by   assignment,   bequest   or   otherwise;   To  erase  all  doubts  and  ambiguities,  we  have  to  amend  the  law.  So  
nor   shall   publication   or   republication   by   the   government   in   a   now,  the  amendment  says,  any  act  of  reproduction,  temporary  of  
public   document   of   any   work   in   which   copyright   is   subsisting   be   permanent.  Covered  na  diba?  In  whole  of  in  part.  only  a  portion.    
taken  to  cause  any  abridgment  or  annulment  of  the  copyright  or  to    
authorize   any   use   or   appropriation   of   such   work   without   the   Only  a  few  bars  of  a  song  must  be  copied  because  according  to  the  
consent  of  the  copyright  owner.   artist  who  copied,  he  was  inspired  by  that  song.  It  so  happens  that  
  the   song   became   popular   because   of   the   few   bars.   Do   the  
  composer   Roy   Orbison?   He   is   a   composer   from   the   1950s,  
6. COPYRIGHT  OR  ECONOMIC  RIGHTS;  OWNERSHIP     composer  of  Pretty  Woman.  So  this  was  the  issue  involved  in  this  
  case.   Only   the   introduction   of   the   song   was   copied   by   another  
a. Copyright  or  Economic  Rights  (sec  177)   composer,  without  seeking  the  authority  of  Mr.  Orbison.  When  he  
  released   the   song   using   the   few   bars,   he   said   that   he   did   not  
ECONOMIC  RIGHTS.   exactly   copy   the   entire   song,   only   that   portion.   But   the   court   said,  
  the  song  became  popular  because  of  that  part,  and  the  author  has  
There  are  two  sets  of  copyrights.   a  right  over  that  few  bars.  In  fact,  that  is  the  heart  of  his  work.  
1. Economic  rights    
2. Moral  rights   I   don’t   know   if   this   was   properly   filed   in   court,   the   song   of   Guns  
and   Roses   the   intro   of   the   song   Sweet   Child   of   Mine.   Only   the   the  definition  of  reproduction.  The  definition  is  a  bit  wider.  This  is  
intro  portion.  But  the  same  principle.  He  did  not  exactly  copy,  but   only   one   of   the   three   provisions   that   are   more   favorable   to   the  
only  inspired.   author   based   on   the   rulings   of   the   SC,   especially   in   the   United  
  States.    
So   the   act   of   reproduction   does   not   necessarily   mean   that   you    
have   to   copy   the   entire   work.   And   when   you   say   substantial   2. RIGHT   TO   DRAMATIZATION,   TRANSLATION,  
portion   as   what   the   law   says,   does   it   have   to   be   in   its   quantitative   ADAPTATION,   ABRIDGMENT,   ARRANGEMENT   OR  
sense?   No,   because   such   a   portion   may   be   a   substantial   portion   OTHER  TRANSFORMATION  OF  THE  WORK  
which   is   understood   to   be   in   its   qualitative   sense,   why   the   work    
became  popular.  It  can  constitute  the  entire  work  itself,  but  a  part   177.2.  Dramatization,  translation,  adaptation,  
of  the  work.  So  it  must  be  interpreted  in  this  manner.  So,  the  term   abridgment,  arrangement  or  other  transformation  of  the  
reproduction   is   further   expanded   to   include   temporary   and   work;  
permanent.      
  It  must  be  transformative.  We  are  talking  about  the  first  kind  of  
Q:  dili  kaayo  nko  ma  hear  but  ni  ask  siya  about  adtong  why  when   derivative  work.  Since  it  is  one  of  the  economic  rights  of  an  author,  
he  used  to  work  pa  daw  sa  publishing  firm,  they  were  allowed  to   for  you  to  be  able  to  make  a  derivative  work,  you  need  the  
copy   at   least   30%   of   an   article   verbatim.   Is   that   ba   daw   an   consent  of  the  author  of  the  underlying  work.    
exception?    
  We  go  back  to  derivative  works,  just  a  review.    
A:   There   are   exceptions.   We   have   this   thing   called   fair   use    
doctrine.   It   depends   on   the     purpose.   What   is   the   purpose   of   173.2.   The   works   referred   to   in   paragraphs   (a)   and   (b)   of  
copying?   Is   it   for   commentary?   Criticism?   infringement   or   not?   If   Subsection   173.1   shall   be   protected   as   new   works:   Provided  
the  purpose  is  to  critique  or  used  as  a  commentary,  that  may  be   however,   That   such   new   work   shall   not   affect   the   force   of   any  
justified.   But   take   note,   if   you   really   analyze   carefully,   the   act   subsisting   copyright   upon   the   original   works   employed   or   any   part  
copying   one’s   work   is   an   act   of   infringement.   But   the   law   does   thereof,   or   be   construed   to   imply   any   right   to   such   use   of   the  
exempts   liability.   There   are   certain   standards   which   must   be   original   works,   or   to   secure   or   extend   copyright   in   such   original  
considered  for  an  act  to  be  considered  a  fair  use  act.  Way  before   works.  (Sec.  8,  P.D.  49;  Art.  10,  TRIPS)  
your   popular   file   sharing   sites,   youtorrent,   bittorrent,   etc…   the    
percurser  for  that  is  Napster.  That  was  the  earliest  form  of  peer-­‐ In  the  case  of  Lactao  v  Paglinawan,  the  right  to  make  a  derivative  
to-­‐peer   file   sharing.   This   one   is   in   the   case   of   A&M   Records   v   work  belong  exclusively  to  the  author  of  the  original  work.    it  has  
Napster.  So  it  depends  how  you  adopt  that  term.  When  you  say  30   been  considered  that  the  right  to  make  a  derivative  work  is  one  of  
per   cent,   bisan   pa   50%   as   long   as   the   purpose   mainly   is   the   economic   rights.   Therefore,   the   author   is   the   only   one   who  
commentary,   for   public   purposes   and   not   for   profit.   When   you   can   carry   out,   authorize   or   prevent   the   performance   of   this   act.  
profit  from  it,  it  will  be  a  point  against  you,  it  will  be  considered  as   How  will  consider  a  work  to  be  a  derivative  work?  It  must  copy  the  
infringement.     expressive  content  of  the  work,  but  at  the  same  time,  it  has  to  be  
  transformative.   What   do   you   mean   transformative?   Going   back   to  
What  are  the  basic  rights  of  the  copyright  owner?   the   minimum   requirement,   that   there   must   be   a   modicum   of  
  intelligence  employed.  If  there  are  only  trivial  changes  introduced  
CHAPTER  V.   to  the  new  work,  would  it  be  classified  as  a  derivative  work?  No.  
COPYRIGHT  OR  ECONOMIC  RIGHTS   However,   it   will   be   considered   as   a   mere   reproduction.   Still   within  
  the  economic  rights  of  the  author.    
SEC.  177.  Copyright  or  Economic  Rights.  -­‐  Subject  to  the  provisions    
of   Chapter   VIII,   copyright   or   economic   rights   shall   consist   of   the   So   what   kind   of   work   is   being   made   in   the   second   right?   It   is   an  
exclusive   right   to   carry   out,   authorize   or   prevent   the   following   alteration  of  an  original  work,  which  is  why  we  have  dramatization,  
acts:   translation,  adaptation,  abridgment,  and  arrangement.    
   
1. RIGHT  OF  REPRODUCTION.     The   most   famous   form   of   derivative   works   are   motion   pictures  
  based  on  facts  (?).    
177.1.   Reproduction   of   the   work   or   substantial   portion    
of  the  work;   3. RIGHT   TO   FIRST   PUBLIC   DISTRIBUTION   OF   THE  
  ORIGINAL  AND  EACH  COPY  OF  THE  WORK  BY  SALE  OR  
171.9.  "Reproduction"  is  the  making  of  one  (1)  or  more   OTHER  FORMS  OF  TRANSFER  OF  OWNERSHIP  
copies,  temporary  or  permanent,  in  whole  or  in  part,  of  a    
work   or   a   sound   recording   in   any   manner   or   form   177.3.   The   first   public   distribution   of   the   original   and   each  
without  prejudice  to  the  provisions  of  Section  185  of  this   copy   of   the   work   by   sale   or   other   forms   of   transfer   of  
Act  (Sec.  41  [E],  P.D.  No.  49a);   ownership;  
   
This   is   the   most   elemental   among   all   rights   because   that   What  do  you  mean  by  first  public  distribution  of  the  original  work?  
addresses   the   directly   the   primary   motive   of   an   author   which   is   And  what  does  it  specify  to  cover  only  the  first?    
economic   expectations.   The   right   to   make   multiple   copies   will    
amount  to  the  right  make  multiple  incomes.  What  is  the  economic   This   item   that   we   are   talking   about   in   the   third   right   is   the  
expectation   of   an   author   in   creating   a   law   book?   It   is   to   derive   material   object.   When   an   author   sells   a   book,   he   is   selling   the  
income   on   each   sale   of   each   book.   In   a   class   of   20   students,   he   material  object,  not  the  contents.  If  you  are  the  buyer  (end-­‐user)  
expects   you   to   buy   an   original   copy   of   his   book   so   he   can   derive   you   own   the   book.   You   have   the   right   to   resell,   lend,   etc   it  
income.   What   will   happen   if   you   will   interpose   the   defense   that   because   you   are   now   the   owner   of   the   material   object.   When   you  
you  are  using  this  for  private  study  and  research?  That  could  be  an   talk  about  first  public  distribution,  you  are  only  talking  about  the  
exempting  act.  If  the  author  will  lose  interest  to  write  a  book,  who   first   transfer.   The   most   common   is   the   first   sale   of   the   book.  
will  be  at  the  losing  end?  Who  will  be  denied  of  his  expertise?  Of   Beyond  that,  the  author  no  long  has  any  right.  He  cannot  dictate  
his  knowledge?  Students  and  law  practitioners.     the  manner  of  distribution.  That  is  why  the  law  says  only  up  to  the  
  first  public  distribution,  both  of  original  and  each  copy  of  the  work,  
“Whole  or  in  part,  in  any  manner  or  form”   either  by  sale  of  other  forms  of  transfer.  That  is  why  in  the  second  
What   if   I   just   copied   the   work   manually,   word   for   word?   Is   that   etc  distribution,  he  has  no  more  rights.    
allowed?  No,  because  you  are  copying  the  expression  of  his  work.    
Is  an  audio  book  included  in  the  purview  of  the  definition?  The  law   Apparently,  there  is  an  exception.  
says,   “in   any   manner   or   form”   if   it   is   being   transformed.   There   are    
works   transformed   to   the   braille   system   to   cater   to   the   visually   Let’s   go   first   to   section   181   so   you   can   understand   the   exclusive  
impaired.  Is  this  included  in  the  definition?  Yes.  A  CD  converted  to   right  to  first  public  distribution.    
an  MP3  file,  is  an  act  of  reproduction.  Any  act  of  copying  is  within    
SEC.   181.   Copyright   and   Material   Object.   -­‐   The   copyright   is   device  or  process;  in  the  case  of  an  audiovisual  work,  the  showing  
distinct   from   the   property   in   the   material   object   subject   to   it.   of   its   images   in   sequence   and   the   making   of   the   sounds  
Consequently,   the   transfer,   assignment   or   licensing   of   the   accompanying   it   audible;   and,   in   the   case   of   a   sound   recording,  
copyright   shall   not   itself   constitute   a   transfer   of   the   material   making  the  recorded  sounds  audible  at  a  place  or  at  places  where  
object.   Nor   shall   a   transfer   or   assignment   of   the   sole   copy   or   of   persons   outside   the   normal   circle   of   a   family   and   that   family’s  
one   or   several   copies   of   the   work   imply   transfer,   assignment   or   closest  social  acquaintances  are  or  can  be  present,  irrespective  of  
licensing  of  the  copyright.  (Sec.  16,  P.D.  No.  49)   whether  they  are  or  can  be  present  at  the  same  place  and  at  the  
  same   time,   or   at   different   places   and/or   at   different   times,   and  
“The  copyright  is  distinct  from  the  property  in  the  material  object   where   the   performance   can   be   perceived   without   the   need   for  
subject  to  it.”   communication  within  the  meaning  of  Subsection  171.3;  
Always   remember   that.   Very   basic,   very   important.   Very   easy   to    
understand,  very  easy  to  forget  also.     There  are  three  types  of  public  performance:  
   
Very  simple  provision,  mostly  applied  in  several  cases.     1. Work  other  than  an  audiovisual  work  
  - how   is   public   performance   defined   when   it   comes  
4. RIGHT  TO  RENTALS   to   work   other   than   audio-­‐visual   work?   Capable   of  
  being  performed,  example  stage  plays.    
177.4.   Rental   of   the   original   or   a   copy   of   an   audiovisual   or   - How   it   is   considered   as   a   performance?   Lets   take  
cinematographic  work,  a  work  embodied  in  a  sound  recording,   the   public   part   first.   It   involves   is   the   recitation,  
a   computer   program,   a   compilation   of   data   and   other   playing,   dancing,   acting   or   otherwise   performing  
materials   or   a   musical   work   in   graphic   form,   irrespective   of   the  work,  either  directly  or  by  means  of  any  device  
st
the  ownership  of  the  original  or  the  copy  which  is  the  subject   or  process.  Remember  the  case  of  21  Century  Fox?  
of  the  rental;  (n)   This  is  cited.  The  performance  of  the  play,  either  in  
  person,   live,   or   remotely   performed,   but   can   be  
This   particular   right   will   only   cover   certain   types   of   works,   it   will   seen  through  a  device.  Internet,  satellite,  broadcast,  
not  cover  all  types  of  literary  artistic  works.  The  law  only  identifies   etc.    
certain   works   that   may   be   subject   to   this   right.   What   are   these    
items  enumerated?   2. Audiovisual  work  
  - The   performance   is   made   through   the   showing   of  
1. Audiovisual  or  cinematographic  work   its   images   in   sequence   and   the   making   of   the  
2. A  work  embodied  in  a  sound  recording   (ex.   Music   cds)-­‐   sounds  accompanying  it  audible.  
it   is   different   from   a   musical   composition.   If   a   - It  has  to  be  in  a  sequence.  
composition   is   being   recorded   and   being   fixed   in   a   CD    
format,   it   become   a   work   embodied   in   a   sound   3. Sound  recording  
recording.     - making  the  recorded  sounds  audible  
3. Computer  program    
4. Compilation  of  data  or  other  materials   How   is   it   classified   as   a   public   performance   as   supposed   to   a  
5. Musical  work  in  graphic  form   private?   What   is   the   provision   for   the   performance   to   be  
  considered  public?    
How  is  rental  defined?    
  It   must   be   made   at   a   place   or   at   places   where   persons   outside   the  
171.8.  "Rental"  is  the  transfer  of  the  possession  of  the  original  or  a   normal   circle   of   a   family   and   that   family’s   closest   social  
copy   of   a   work   or   a  sound   recording   for   a   limited   period   of   time,   acquaintances  are  or  can  be  present,  irrespective  of  whether  they  
for  profit-­‐making  purposes;   are  or  can  be  present  at  the  same  place  and  at  the  same  time,  or  
  at   different   places   and/or   at   different   times,   and   where   the  
How  will  you  differentiate  it  from  public  lending?   performance   can   be   perceived   without   the   need   for  
  communication  within  the  meaning  of  Subsection  171.3;  
171.5.  "Public  lending"  is  the  transfer  of  possession  of  the  original    
or  a  copy  of  a  work  or  sound  recording  for  a  limited  period,  for   171.3.   "Communication   to   the   public"   or   "communicate   to   the  
non-­‐profit  purposes,  by  an  institution  the  services  of  which  are   public"   means   any   communication   to   the   public,   including  
available  to  the  public,  such  as  public  library  or  archive;   broadcasting,   rebroadcasting,   retransmitting   by   cable,  
  broadcasting   and   retransmitting   by   satellite,   and   includes   the  
The   difference   is   the   term   “non-­‐profit   purposes”   because   if   you   making  of  a  work  available  to  the  public  by  wire  or  wireless  means  
speak  of  rentals,  it  is  for  profit  making  purposes.   in  such  a  way  that  members  of  the  public  may  access  these  works  
  from  a  place  and  time  individually  chosen  by  them;  
But  it  is  only  limited  to  certain  kinds  of  work  (abovementioned  1-­‐  
5).   The  definition  clearly  tells  us,  all  types  of  performances  that  are  
  made  of  an  audience  that  is  present,  or  before  persons  found  very  
5. RIGHT  TO  PUBLIC  DISPLAY   far  or  remote.  Does  it  have  to  be  in  real  time?  No,  not  necessarily  
  because  it  may  be  that  it  is  accessed  by  the  public  at  a  time  
177.5.   Public   display   of   the   original   or   a   copy   of   the   individually  chosen  by  them.    
work;    
  That   is   the   definition   of   public   performance.   It     does   not   qualify  
Exhibits  can  be  considered  as  one  way  of  public  display.   whether  it  is  for  profit  or  not.    
   
6. RIGHT  TO  PUBLIC  PERFORMANCE  OF  THE  WORK   Pearl  &  Dean  Inc.,  supra  
   
177.6.  Public  performance  of  the  work;  and   Filipino  Society  of  Composers  vs.  Tan,  148  SCRA  461  (1987)  
  Facts    
The   old   law   provides,   performance   for   profit.   Now   it   has   been   Filipino   Society   of   Composers,   Authors   and   Publishers   Inc.   is  
changed  to  “public  performance  of  the  work.”  it  does  not  matter  if   organization   under   the   Corporation   Law   of   the   Philippines   and  
it  is  for  profit  or  not.     registered   with   the   Securities   and   Exchange   Commission.   The  
  association   is   the   owner   of   certain   musical   compositions   among  
Definitions:   which   are   the   songs   entitled:   "Dahil   Sa   Iyo",   "Sapagkat   Ikaw   Ay  
  Akin,"   "Sapagkat   Kami   Ay   Tao   Lamang"   and   "The   Nearness   Of  
171.6.  "Public   performance,"  in  the  case  of  a  work  other  than  an   You."    
audiovisual   work,   is   the   recitation,   playing,   dancing,   acting   or   Benjamin   Tan   on   the   other   hand   is   the   operator   of   a   restaurant  
otherwise  performing  the  work,  either  directly  or  by  means  of  any   known  as  "Alex  Soda  Foundation  and  Restaurant"  where  a  combo  
with   professional   singers,   hired   to   play   and   sing   musical   At  that  time,  it  was  being  considered  if  it  were  for  profit  or  not.  It  
compositions   to   entertain   and   amuse   customers   therein,   were   is   very   crucial   also   because   the   SC   said   for   profit   although   the  
playing   and   singing   the   above-­‐mentioned   compositions   without   patrons  are  not  directly  paying  for  the  performance,  but  because  
any   license   or   permission   from   the   appellant   to   play   or   sing   the   of  the  band  featured  in  the  established,  it  became  more  attractive  
same.   Accordingly,   appellant   demanded   from   the   appellee   and   more   profitable   for   the   establishment   owner.   So   he   derived  
payment  of  the  necessary  license  fee  for  the  playing  and  singing  of   profit  out  of  the  performance.  Indirectly,  it  is  for  profit.  BUT,  it  is  
aforesaid  compositions  but  the  demand  was  ignored.     not  considered  as  covered  under  the  copyright  protection  because  
Tan’s   Argument:   That   the   mere   singing   and   playing   of   songs   and   the  old  rule  says  it  must  be  registered  within  30  days.  At  that  time,  
popular   tunes   even   if   they   are   copyrighted   do   not   constitute   an   that  was  the  deciding  point  that  is  why  petitioners  failed  to  claim  
infringement   (Record   on   Appeal,   p.   11;   Resolution,   CA-­‐G.R.   NO.   damaged.   THAT   IS   NOT   APPLICABLE   NOW.   The   reason   why   the  
46373-­‐R,  Rollo,  pp.  32-­‐36)  under  the  provisions  of  Section  3  of  the   Philippines   needed   to   adopt   the   new   law   is   for   it   to   follow   with  
Copyright  Law  (Act  3134  of  the  Philippine  Legislature).     the   growing   global   trend,   the   universally   accepted   principles   of  
  Copyright  Law,  the  Principle  of  Automatic  Protection.  
Issues      
1.  Whether  or  not  the  playing  and  singing  of  musical  compositions   Principle  of  Automatic  Protection:    
which   have   been   copyrighted   under   the   provisions   of   the   Works   are   created   from   the   moment   of   creation.   There   is   no  
Copyright   Law   (Act   3134)   inside   the   establishment   of   Benjamin   formality  required  in  order  to  acquire  such  right.    
Tan   constitute   a   public   performance   for   profit   within   the   meaning    
and  contemplation  of  the  Copyright  Law  of  the  Philippines?     We  have  to  apply  the  ruling  in  Columbia  Pictures  v  CA.  
2.   Assuming   that   there   were   indeed   public   performances   for    
profit,  whether  or  not  Benjamin  Tan  can  be  held  liable  therefore.     The   same   thing   happened   in   the   case   of   Malalang   Santos   v  
  McCullough   Printing.   The   reason   why   it   was   not   claimed   as  
Held     covered  work  because  of  the  failure  of  registration.  (Not  furthered  
1st  issue:     discussed)  
Yes.      
The  playing  of  music  in  dine  and  dance  establishment  which  was   Malang  Santos  vs.,  McCullough  Printing,  12  SCRA  321  (1964)  
paid  for  by  the  public  in  purchases  of  food  and  drink  constituted   Facts    
"performance   for   profit"   within   a   Copyright   Law   (Buck,   et   al.   v.   Mauro   Malalang   Santos   filed   an   action   for   damages   for  
Russon  No.  4489  25  F.  Supp.  317).     unauthorized   use,   adaptation   and   appropriation   by   the  
2nd  issue:     MCCULLOUGH  PRINTING  COMPANY  of  the  intellectual  creation  or  
The  Supreme  Court  has  ruled  that  "Paragraph  33  of  Patent  Office   artistic   design   of   a   Christmas   card   by   him   (Mauro   Maglalang  
Administrative   Order   No.   3   (as   amended,   dated   September   18,   Santos)   based   on   Article   721   and   722   of   the   Civil   Code   of   the  
1947)   entitled   'Rules   of   Practice   in   the   Philippines   Patent   Office   Philippines.    
relating   to   the   Registration   of   Copyright   Claims'   promulgated   The  Christmas  card  depicts  a  Philippine  rural  Christmas  time  scene  
pursuant  to  Republic  Act  165,  provides  among  other  things  that  an   consisting   of   a   woman   and   a   child   in   a   nipa   hut   adorned   with   a  
intellectual   creation   should   be   copyrighted   thirty   (30)   days   after   star-­‐shaped   lantern   and   a   man   astride   a   carabao,   beside   a   tree,  
its  publication,  if  made  in  Manila,  or  within  the  (60)  days  if  made   underneath  which  appears  the  plaintiff's  pen  name,  Malang.    
elsewhere,   failure   of   which   renders   such   creation   public   The   complaint   alleges   that   plaintiff   Mauro   Malang   Santos  
property."   (Santos   v.   McCullough   Printing   Company,   12   SCRA   324-­‐ designed   for   former   Ambassador   Felino   Neri,   for   his   personal  
325   [1964].   Indeed,   if   the   general   public   has   made   use   of   the   Christmas   Card   greetings   for   the   year   1959,   the   artistic   motif   in  
object   sought   to   be   copyrighted   for   thirty   (30)   days   prior   to   the   question.   The   following   year   the   defendant   McCullough   Printing  
copyright   application   the   law   deems   the   object   to   have   been   Company,   without   the   knowledge   and   authority   of   plaintiff,  
donated   to   the   public   domain   and   the   same   can   no   longer   be   displayed   the   very   design   in   its   album   of   Christmas   cards   and  
copyrighted.     offered  it  for  sale,  for  a  price.  For  such  
A  careful  study  of  the  records  reveals  that  the  song  "Dahil  Sa  Iyo"    
which  was  registered  on  April  20,  1956  (Brief  for  Appellant,  p.  10)   unauthorized   act   of   defendant,   plaintiff   suffered   moral   damages  
became  popular  in  radios,  juke  boxes,  etc.  long  before  registration   to   the   tune   of   P16,000.00,   because   it   has   placed   plaintiff's  
(TSN,  May  28,  1968,  pp.  3-­‐5;  25)  while  the  song  "The  Nearness  Of   professional   integrity   and   ethics   under   serious   question   and  
You"   registered   on   January   14,   1955   (Brief   for   Appellant,   p.   10)   caused   him   grave   embarrassment   before   Ambassador   Neri.   He  
had   become   popular   twenty   five   (25)   years   prior   to   1968,   (the   further   prayed   for   the   additional   sum   of   P3,000.00   by   way   of  
year  of  the  hearing)  or  from  1943  (TSN,  May  28,  1968,  p.  27)  and   attorney's  fee.    
the   songs   "Sapagkat   Ikaw   Ay   Akin"   and   "Sapagkat   Kami   Ay   Tao    
Lamang"   both   registered   on   July   10,   1966,   appear   to   have   been   Issues    
known  and  sang  by  the  witnesses  as  early  as  1965  or  three  years   (1)   Whether   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   protection,   notwithstanding  
before   the   hearing   in   1968.   The   testimonies   of   the   witnesses   at   the,  fact  that  he  has  not  copyrighted  his  design?    
the   hearing   of   this   case   on   this   subject   were   unrebutted   by   the   (2)  Whether  the  publication  is  limited,  so  as  to  prohibit  its  use  by  
appellant.  (Ibid,  pp.  28;  29  and  30).   others,  or  it  is  general  publication?    
  (3)  Whether  the  provisions  of  the  Civil  Code  or  the  Copyright  Law  
Atty:  Do  you  think  that  ruling  is  still  applicable?  No.   should  apply  in  the  case?    
Remember   that   this   is   based   on   the   old   law,   PD   49.   Very    
significant   to   point   out   that   one   of   the   reason   why   copyright   used   Law    
failed   to   achieve   prosecuting   the   defendants   because   of   this   Art.   721.   By   intellectual   creation,   the   following   persons   acquire  
requirement  that  they  have  to  publish  within  30  days.  The  ruling   ownership:    
says,  the  owner  of  the  established  who  play  the  copyrighted  song   (1)   The   author   with   regard   to   his   literary,   dramatic,   historical,  
is  liable  for  performance  for  profit  (at  that  time)  but  the  new  law,   legal,  philosophical,  scientific  or  other  work;    
does  not  require  for  profit  as  long  as  it  is  a  public  performance.     (2)  The  composer;  as  to  his  musical  composition;    
  (3)   The   painter,   sculptor,   or   other   artist,   with   respect   to   the  
Learning  definition  of  the  new  law  of  public  performance,  do  you   product  of  his  art;    
think  it  fall  in  the  definition?  Yes.  What  kind  of  work  are  we  talking   (4)  The  scientist  or  technologist  or  any  other  person  with  regard  to  
about?   It   is   a   work   other   than   audio-­‐visual   work.   How   is   it   used   his  discovery  or  invention.  (n)    
based  on  the  fact  of  the  case?  It  was  being  play.  So  it  falls  within   Art.  722.  The  author  and  the  composer,  mentioned  in  Nos.  1  and  2  
the   definition   of   performance.   Can   it   be   considered   as   public   of   the   preceding   article,   shall   have   the   ownership   of   their  
performance?  It  is  being  sung  for  the  patrons  of  the  establishment.   creations   even   before   the   publication   of   the   same.   Once   their  
Definitely  it  is  not  within  the  normal  circle  of  the  family  and  even   works   are   published,   their   rights   are   governed   by   the   Copyright  
extends   to   the   family’s   closest   acquaintance.   If   you   apply   that   laws.    
factual  circumstance  in  the  new  law,  it  falls  within  the  definition  of   The  painter,  sculptor  or  other  artist  shall  have  dominion  over  the  
public  performance.     product  of  his  art  even  before  it  is  copyrighted.    
 
The   scientist   or   technologist   has   the   ownership   of   his   discovery   or   - Statutory  
invention  even  before  it  is  patented.  (n)     o Only  those  rights  that  are  provided  in  the  
  law.    
Held      
1st  issue:     There   was   this   case,   an   author   entered   into   a   contract   with   a  
The   Supreme   Court   found   that   plaintiff   is   not   entitled   to   a   publisher.   One   of   the   terms   of   publication   was   for   the   author   to  
protection,   the   provision   of   the   Civil   Code,   notwithstanding.   provide  them  with  a  manuscript  of  his  work.  But  for  reasons  only  
Paragraph   33   of   Patent   Office   Administrative   Order   No.   3   (as   known  to  the  author,  he  submitted  his  sole  copy  to  the  publisher.  
amended  dated  September  18,  1947)  entitled  "Rules  of  Practice  in   The   publication   did   not   push   through.   Later   on,   he   contracted  
the   Philippines   Patent   Office   relating   to   the   Registration   of   another  publishing  contract  with  another  publishing  company.  As  
Copyright   Claims"   promulgated   pursuant   to   Republic   Act   165,   he   submitted   his   only   copy   to   the   previous   publishing   company,  
provides,   among   others,   that   an   intellectual   creation   should   be   he   demanded   for   the   return   of   his   copy.   The   first   publishing  
copyrighted   thirty   (30)   days   after   its   publication,   if   made   in   company  refused.  The  author  failed  to  recover,  so  he  filed  a  case  
Manila,   or   within   sixty   (60)   day's   if   made   elsewhere,   failure   of   against  the  publishing  company  alleging  copyright  infringement.    
which   renders   such   creation   public   property.   In   the   case   at   bar,    
even   as   of   this   moment,   there   is   no   copyright   for   the   design   in   Is   his   case   tenable?   No.   He   is   alleging   refusal   of   the   publishing  
question.     company   to   turn   over   or   return   his   manuscript.   Does   he   have   a  
  cause  of  action  against  the  publishing  company?  Yes.  But  is  it  the  
2nd  issue:     correct   cause   of   action?   No.   The   remedy   is   to   recover   his  
We   are   not   also   prepared   to   accept   the   contention   of   appellant   possession  of  a  property.    
that  the  publication  of  the  design  was  a  limited  one,  or  that  there    
was   an   understanding   that   only   Ambassador   Neri   should,   have   Why  is  this  not  considered  as  a  copyright  infringement?  How  do  
absolute  right  to  use  the  same.  In  the  first  place,  if  such  were  the   we  characterize  these  sets  of  right?  Exclusive  and  Statutory.  There  
condition   then   Ambassador   Neri   would   be   the   aggrieved   party,   is   no  specific  provision   that   you   can   cite   for   it   to   be   considered   as  
and   not   the   appellant.   In   the   second   place,   if   there   was   such   a   a   violation   of   his   right.   You   cannot   find   in   the   enumeration   this  
limited  publication  or  prohibition,  the  same  was  not  shown  on  the   kind   of   violation.   There   is   a   violation   but   it   is   not   copyright  
face  of  the  design.  When  the  purpose  is  a  limited  publication,  but   infringement.   It   is   erroneous   for   his   to   initiate   a   case   on   copy  
the   effect   is   general   publication,   irrevocable   rights   thereupon   infringement.    
become   vested   in   the   public,   in   consequence   of   which    
enforcement   of   the   restriction   becomes   impossible   (Nutt   vs.   Since   copyright   is   a   statutory   right,   you   are   limited   to   only   what  
National  Institute,  31  F  [2d]  236).  It  has  been  held  that  the  effect   the   law   provides.   What   is   the   source   of   your   right?   You   examine  
of   offering   for   sale   a   dress,   for   example   manufactured   in   the   law.   Is   it   within   the   provisions   provided?   If   no,   you   cannot  
accordance   with   an   original   design   which   is   not   protected   by   afford   a   right   that   is   not   found   in   law.   That   is   what   you   call   as  
either   a   copyright   or   a   patent,   is   to   divest   the   owner   of   his   statutory  right.    
common  law  rights  therein  by  virtue  of  the  publication  of  a  'copy'    
and   thereafter   anyone   is   free   to   copy   the   design   or   the   dress   b. Copyright  ownership  
(Fashion   Originators   Guild   of   America   v.   Federal   Trade    
Commission,   114   F   [2d]   80).   When   Ambassador   Neri   distributed   SEC.  178.  Rules  on  Copyright  Ownership.  -­‐  Copyright  ownership  
800  copies  of  the  design  in  controversy,  the  plaintiff  lost  control  of   shall  be  governed  by  the  following  rules:  
his  design  and  the  necessary  implication  was  that  there  had  been    
a   general   publication,   there   having   been   no   showing   of   a   clear   178.1.  Subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  section,  in  the  case  of  
indication  that  a  limited  publication  was  intended.  The  author  of  a   original  literary  and  artistic  works,  copyright  shall  belong  to  the  
literary  composition  has  a  light  to  the  first  publication  thereof.  He   author  of  the  work;  
has  a  right  to  determine  whether  it  shall  be  published  at  all,  and  if    
published,   when,   where,   by   whom,   and   in   what   form.   This   Who  owns  the  copyright?  
exclusive   right   is   confined   to   the   first   publication.   When   once   As  a  rule:  the  author  of  the  work.  
published,   it   is   dedicated   to   the   public,   and   the   author   loses   the    
exclusive   right   to   control   subsequent   publication   by   others,   unless   JOINT  AUTHORSHIP  
the   work   is   placed   under   the   protection   of   the   copyright   law.   (See    
II  Tolentino's  Comments  on  the  Civil  Code,  p.  433,  citing  Wright  v.   178.2.   In   the   case   of   works   of   joint   authorship,   the   co-­‐authors  
Eisle  83  N.Y.  Supp.  887.)     shall   be   the   original   owners   of   the   copyright  and  in  the  absence  
3rd  issue:     of   agreement,   their   rights   shall   be   governed   by   the   rules   on   co-­‐
Art.  722.  The  author  and  the  composer,  mentioned  in  Nos.  1  and  2   ownership.  If,  however,  a  work  of  joint  authorship  consists  of  parts  
of   the   preceding   article,   shall   have   the   ownership   of   their   that   can   be   used   separately   and   the   author   of   each   part   can   be  
creations   even   before   the   publication   of   the   same.   Once   their   identified,   the   author   of   each   part   shall   be   the   original   owner   of  
works   are   published,   their   rights   are   governed   by   the   Copyright   the  copyright  in  the  part  that  he  has  created;  
laws.      
The  painter,  sculptor  or  other  artist  shall  have  dominion  over  the   Joint   authorship:   a   work   that   is   created   by   two   or   more   authors  
product  of  his  art  even  before  it  is  copyrighted.     and  their  contribution  to  the  work  cannot  be  identified.    
The   scientist   or   technologist   has   the   ownership   of   his   discovery   or   who   owns   the   work?   the   co-­‐authors   shall   be   the   owner   of   the  
invention  even  before  it  is  patented.  (n)   copyright.  Absence  of  agreement,  their  rights  shall  be  governed  by  
  the  rules  on  co-­‐ownership.    
7. RIGHT   TO   OTHER   COMMUNICATION   TO   THE   PUBLIC   OF    
THE  WORK.   No  co-­‐owner  can  form  acts  of  dominion  unless  he  has  the  consent  
  of   the   co-­‐owners.   So   if   you   dispose   or   sell,   you   must   have   the  
177.7.  Other  communication  to  the  public  of  the  work  (Sec.  5,   consent  of  the  other  co-­‐owners.    
P.D.  No.  49a)    
  (There   are   certain   works   that   their   contribution   can   be   indentified,  
The   law   anticipates   that   in   the   future   we   will   be   able   to   develop   the   common   example   is   musical   compositioin   for   the   melody   and  
other   types   of   protection,   the   same   thing   happened   in   the   case   of   and  the  other  one  is  for  the  lyrics.  They  have  separate  works,  you  
th
20   Century   Fox.   It   happened   in   the   1970s   and   the   law   that   was   cannot  consider  them  as  joint  authors.)  
applied  was  enacted  in  the  early  1900s.  The  interpretation  of  the    
court   says   that   we   have   to   interpret   the   law   as   to   be   able   to   WORKS  OF  EMPLOYMENT  
anticipate   not   only   the   present   form   of   communication   but   also    
the  future.  This  is  how  the  law  addresses  future  advancement.     178.3.  In  the  case  of  work  created  by  an  author  during  and  in  the  
  course  of  his  employment,  the  copyright  shall  belong  to:  
How  do  we  characterize  this  set  of  rights  (rights  1-­‐7)?      
- Exclusive   (a)  The  employee,  if  the  creation  of  the  object  of  copyright  is  not  a  
part   of   his   regular   duties   even   if   the   employee   uses   the   time,   ANONYMOUS  OR  PSEUDONYNOUS  WORKS  
facilities  and  materials  of  the  employer.    
  SEC.   179.   Anonymous   and   Pseudonymous   Works.  -­‐  For  purposes  
(b)   The   employer,   if   the   work   is   the   result   of   the   performance   of   of  this  Act,  the  publishers  shall  be  deemed  to  represent  the  authors  
his   regularly-­‐assigned   duties,   unless   there   is   an   agreement,   of  articles  and  other  writings  published  without  the  names  of  the  
express  or  implied,  to  the  contrary.   authors  or  under  pseudonyms,  unless  the  contrary  appears,  or  the  
  pseudonyms  or  adopted  name  leaves  no  doubts  as  to  the  author’s  
If  there  is  no  agreement,  default  rule:     identity,   or   if   the   author   of   the   anonymous   works   discloses   his  
- It   belongs   to   the   EMPLOYEE   if   not   part   of   his   identity.    
regular  duties    
- It   belongs   to   the   EMPLOYER   if   part   of   his   regular   Take   note.   This   is   very   important,   another   provision   that   is  
duties   misunderstood   by   law   students.   With   respect   to   works   whose  
  authors   are   anonymous   and   whose   authors   use   pseudonymous,  
Exception:  if  there  is  an  agreement  (par  b)   copyright  is  still  owned  by  the  owner.  ALWAYS  REMEMBER  THAT.  
  But   since   it   could   not   be   practical   for   him   to   enforce   his   right,  
Very  important:  as  one  of  the  clauses  in  an  employment  contract,   unless   his   real   identity   will   be   exposed,   the   law   provides   him   an  
to  examine  carefully  whether  it  provides  for  an  employee  to  waive   avenue   for   him   to   prosecute   or   to   administer   his   copyright  
his  right  to  the  copyright.   through   his   publisher.   The   law   says:   the   publisher   shall   be   deemed  
  to   represent   the   author   of   articles   and   other   writings   published  
It   could   be   that   the   copyright   owner   is   not   the   author.   Under   without  the  names  of  the  author  or  under  pseudonyms.  
Section  178.3  because  the  employer,  not  the  author  can  become    
the  copyright  owner.  What  about     EXCEPTION:    
  1. Unless  the  contrary  appears.      
WORKS  OF  COMMISSION   Unless,  another  person  has  been  authorized,  not  the  publisher.  So,  
  if  there  is  an  SPA  or  the  book  itself  provides  that  copyright  shall  be  
178.4.  In  the  case  of  a  work   commissioned   by   a   person  other  than   enforced  through  this  person.    
an   employer   of   the   author   and   who   pays   for   it   and   the   work   is    
made   in   pursuance   of   the   commission,   the   person   who   so   2. The   pseudonyms   or   adopted   name   leaves   no   doubts   as  
commissioned  the  work  shall  have  ownership  of  the  work,  but  the   to  the  author’s  identity.  
copyright   thereto   shall   remain   with   the   creator,   unless   there   is   a   For  example:  Bamboo,    
written  stipulation  to  the  contrary;    
  3. It   the   author   of   the   anonymous   works   discloses   his  
Works  of  Commission   Works  of  employment   identity.  
it   depends   upon   the   order   of   there   has   to   be   a   employer-­‐  
another   person   but   it   is   not   employee   relationship   (4   fold    
made   for   the   purpose   of   rule)   QUESTIONS  FROM  STUDENTS  
performing  employment  work.    
  Q:   What   if   sir,   in   case   of   a   band,   the   song   was   written   by   the  
Works  of  commission  is  very  common  in  architectural  works.  The   collaborative  effort  of  the  entire  band,  what  happens  if  the  band  
owner  of  the  building  commissions  an  engineer  or  an  architect  to   breaks  up?  
construct  the  building.    
  A:  it  does  not  matte  as  to  the  status  of  their  relationship  because  
Who  owns  the  copyright  of  design?  architect   authorship   stays   with   the   copyright   owner.   They   are   co-­‐owners,  
  even  if  their  break  up  was  sour.  
What   about   an   architect   employed   in   a   construction   firm,   who    
owns  the  copyright  of  their  works?  Apply   works   of   employment.   Q:   As   part   principle   of   a   statutory   right   it   is   imperative   that   the  
However,  if  his  contract  of  employment  stipulates  that  regardless   author   must   register   it   first.   As   you   said   sir,   in   Malang   and   Filipino  
of   whether   it   is   perform   within   or   outside   his   regularly   assigned   Society  of  Composers,  the  problem  here  is  the  fact  that  they  were  
duty,  the  work  is  owned  by  the  employee,  it  will  an  exception  to   not  able  to  register  it.  Is  it  not  imperative  that  they  must  register  it  
paragraph  b,  section  178.3.   first  before  they  impose  their  right,  because  it  is  a  statutory  right?  
   
AUDIO-­‐VISUAL  WORKS   A:   No.   There   is   no   relevance   for   the   requirement   of   registration.  
  Regardless  of  registration,  it  is  still  a  statutory  right.    
178.5.  In  the  case  of  audiovisual  work,  the  copyright  shall  belong    
to   the   producer,   the   author   of   the   scenario,   the   composer   of   the   Q:  What  if  somebody  else  registered  it  before  you  (the  real  owner)?  
music,   the   film   director,   and   the   author   of   the   work   so   adapted.    
However,   subject   to   contrary   or   other   stipulations   among   the   A:   you   cannot   register   it   unless   you   are   the   owner.   If   through  
creators,   the   producer   shall   exercise   the   copyright   to   an   extent   fraud,   it   will   then   be   matter   of   evidence   to   show   that   he   is   the  
required   for   the   exhibition   of   the   work   in   any   manner,   except   for   right  owner.  It  is  a  different  cause  of  action.  Registration  is  more  
the  right  to  collect  performing  license  fees  for  the  performance  of   on  convenience.  That  is  why  the  law  says,  it  is  not  a  requirement,  
musical   compositions,   with   or   without   words,   which   are   but   it   is   strongly   advised   for   you   register   it   for   you   to   have   a  
incorporated  into  the  work;     certificate   of   copyright   registration.   It   is   easier   to   establish  
  ownership  of  a  work  if  you  have  a  certificate.  BUT  the  certificate  
What   is   the   most   common   type   of   audio-­‐visual   work?   Motion   does   not   confer   ownership;   it   is   just   a   support   to   your   claim.   If  
pictures.  Who  owns  the  copyright?  The  Producers.   somebody   else   proves   owner,   or   having   a   better   right   over   your  
With   respect   to   parts   of   the   work,   which   can   be   identified   work,  the  certificate  will  not  be  used  as  basis.    
separately,   such   as   lighting,   cinematographic   work,   then   the    
owner,  is  cinematographer.  The  sounds  belong  to  the  composers.     Q:   if   a   contactor   registers   a   building,   and   the   design   is   copied   by  
  another   entity,   will   this   be   a   violation   of   copyright   infringement?  
It   is   a   collaborative   work   wherein   their   contribution   can   be   (like  for  example  the  picture  is  displayed  outside  the  building  site  
identified.  They  have  separate  types  of  copyright.     [soon  to  rise  ….])    
   
LETTERS   A:   Yes   because   one   of   the   works   covered   by   copyright   are  
  architectural  works.    
178.6.  In  respect  of  letters,  the  copyright  shall  belong  to  the  writer  
subject   to   the   provisions   of   Article   723   of   the   Civil   Code.   (Sec.   6,  
P.D.  No.  49a)  
 
 Chapter  VII   It   only   pertains   to   authorization-­‐   being   authorized   to  
  perform   limited   rights   as   compared   to   an   assignee   or   transferee.  
7.   TRANSFER/ASSIGNMENT   OF   COPYRIGHT   OR   LICENSING   OF   They’re  only  allowed  to  carry   out.   They  have  no   right   to   authorize  
COPYRIGHT  SEC.  180  TO  180.5  TO  182   and   no   right   to   prevent.   Why?     Because   they   are   not   the  
  copyright   owner.   The   license   only   involves   an   authorization   for  
Atty   Q   (AQ):  We  have  noticed  that  this  particular  part  of  the  law   one  to  perform  certain  acts.    
has   been   amended   and   there   are   certain   recent   additions   to   the   The   law   also   says   “…a   copyright   may   be   licensed   in   whole   or  
title  itself.     in   part”.   So   if   a   license   is   issued,   we   have   to   check   whether   the  
Now:  Transfer,  Assignment  and  Licensing  of  Copyright.     license  convers  ALL   of  the  rights  or  authorizes  ALL   of  the  acts,  or  
Before:  Transfer  or  Assignment  of  Copyright   only  SOME.  Because  it  says  “in  whole  or  in  part”  
   
SEC.  180.  Rights  of  Assignee  or  Licensee.     What  are  the  formal  requirements?  
   
180.1.   The   copyright   may   be   assigned   or   licensed   in   whole   or   in   SEC.  180.2  :  The  copyright  is  not  deemed  assigned  or  licensed  
part.  Within  the  scope  of  the  assignment  or  license,  the    ssignee  or   inter   vivos,   in   whole   or   in   part,   unless   there   is   a   written  indication  
licensee   is   entitled   to   all   the   rights   and   remedies   which   the   of  such  intention.  
assignor  or  licensor  had  with  respect  to  the  copyright.    
  So  it  has  to  be  in  writing.  
In  Assignment,  who  are  the  parties?  Assignor  and  Assignee    
  The   Law   says   that   there   is   Special  License  (SEC.  180.3).  Why  
In  Licensing,  who  are  the  parties?  Licensor  and  Licensee     special?  
  Because:     there   is   no   need   for   a   written   agreement.  
AQ:  When  we  talk  about  Assignment,  it’s  the  same  with  Transfer.   (an  exception  to  the  rule)  
There   is   transmission   of   Ownership.   They   have   the   same   legal   What   act   can   be   considered   as   an   authorization   given  
effect.   to  the  recipient?  To  licensee?  
  The  act  of  submission.    
The   law   provides,   for   the   provisions   pertaining   to   transfer   of   By  whom?  
Ownership.   As   what   we’ve   said,   it   involves   the   right   to   a   property,    Limited   only   to   authors   of:   Literary,   photographic,   or  
specifically  the  right  to  an  intellectual  property.  We’ve  discussed   artistic  works.  
last  time  that  the  rights  to  a  copyright  is  different  from  the  right   To  whom?  
to   the   material   object   and   vice   versa.   If   there   is   transfer   of   Submission   to   newspaper,   magazine,   periodical   or  
copyright,   it   doesn’t   follow   that   there’s   a   transfer   of   a   material   publication.    
object.   So   what   the   chapter   talks   about   is   the   right   to   the    
economic  rights  as  well  as  other  rights  involving  the  Copyright.   The  act  of  submission  is  construed  as  a  license  to  make  
  a  single  publication  (for  one  time  only).    
When   there   is   transfer   or   assignment,   there   is   transfer   of   So,  there  is  no  need  for  a  written  indication  as  long  as  
ownership.       there  is  an  act  of  submission.  But   the   license   is   limited.   How?  
  It   only   allows   single   publication   on   the   part   of   the  
What  happens  when  there’s  a  transfer  of  ownership?   newspaper.  
The   assignee   or   the   transferee   becomes   the   Copyright          
owner.  Being  the  new  Copyright  owner,     he   assumes   all   If   two   or   more   persons   jointly   own   a   copyright   or   any   part  
the  rights.   thereof:  
But  there  are  certain  Exceptions:     Neither   of   the   co-­‐owners   shall   be   entitled   to   grant   licenses  
Since  the  law  says  “…it  may  be  assigned  in  whole   without  the  prior  written  consent  of     the   other   co-­‐owner/co-­‐
or  in  part”,  It  could  mean  that  he  assumes  all  the  rights   owners.    
enumerated   under   the   law   OR   maybe,   the   subject    
matter  of  the  assignment    pertains  only  to  some  of  the   What  happens  if  one  co-­‐owner  grants  licenses  without  the  prior  
rights.   written  consent  of  the  other  co-­‐owner/co-­‐owners?  
The   law   allows   for   the   situation   wherein   the   copyright    License   is   void,   in   so   far   as   the   co-­‐owners   concerned.   Because  
owner  may  assign  or  license  only  SOME  OF  HIS  RIGHTS.   the   co-­‐owner   who   issued   a   license   without   securing   the   consent  
  of   the   co-­‐owner   is   already   estopped   from   questioning   the   validity.  
 Economic  Rights  (Sec.  177)   However,  the  other  co-­‐owner  who  did  not  give  his  consent  has  the  
1. Right  to  make  a  Reproduction   right  to  question  the  validity  of  the  license.    
2. Right  to  make  Dramatization  or  Derivative  Works    
3. Right  to  First  Public  Distribution   In  the  amendment,  there  are  additional  provisions.    
4. Right   to   the   Rental   of   the   original   or   copy   of   an   Section  180.4  and  180.5.  
audiovisual  or  cinematographic  world    
5. Right   to   the   Public   display   of   the   original   or   a   copy   SEC.   180.4:   “Any  exclusivity  in  the  economic  rights  in  a  work  may  
of  the  work   be   exclusively   licensed.   Within   the   scope   of   the   exclusive   license,  
6. Right  to  the  Public  performance  of  the  work;  and   the   licensee   is   entitled   to   all   the   rights   and   remedies   which   the  
7. Right   to   the   Other   communication   to   the   public   of   licensor  had  with  respect  to  the  copyright.”  
the  work      
  AQ:   Somehow   this   is   an   exception   because   as   what   we’ve  
These   transactions   only   transfer   the   copyright   owner’s   right   of   discussed,  there  is  no  transfer  of  ownership.  Therefore  you  cannot  
reproduction   while   retaining   the   rest   of   his   other   rights.   This   is   perform  proprietary  acts.  However,  if  there  is  an  exclusivity  clause,  
what  it  means  “in  whole  or  in  part”.   this   provision   allows   for   the   exclusive   licensee   to   avail   of   all   the  
  rights   and   remedies   which   the   licensor   had   with   respect   to   the  
So   being   the   new   owner,   the   transferee   or   assignee   assumes   all   copyright.   This   is   applicable   especially   with   respect   to   exclusive  
the   rights.   Meaning,   he   has   all   the   right   to   carry   out,   right   to   rights  to  reproduction.  
authorize   and   the   right   to   prevent.   So   he   assumes   all   the   rights    
and   privileges   as   the   new   copyright   owner.   He   being   the   Sec.   180.5:   The   copyright   owner   has   the   right   to   regular  
transferee.   statements   of   accounts   from   the   assignee   or   the   licensee   with  
  regard  to  assigned  or  licensed  work.  
What  happens  with  respect  to  licensing  (Licensor-­‐  Licensee)?    
 The   licensee   does   not   acquire   ownership,   because   there   was   no   AQ:  This  will  allow  the  copyright  owner  to  be  able  to  avail  of  the  
transfer  of  ownership.     right  to  percentage  of  the  earnings.    
   
What  does  licensing  entail?    
8. DESIGNATION  OF  SOCIETY  SEC.  183    
  PUBLIC   PRIVATE    
SEC   183.   Designation   of   Society.   -­‐   The   owners   of   copyright   and   Sec.   171.6.   xxx   in   a   Any   act   contrary   to    
related   rights   or   their   heirs   may   designate   a   society   of   artists,   place  or  at   the   definition   of    
writers,  composers  and  other  right-­‐holders  to  collectively  manage   places   where   persons   “public   performance”    
their   economic   or   moral   rights   on   their   behalf.   For   the   said   outside   the   normal   enshrined   in   Sec.    
societies   to   enforce   the   rights   of   their   members,   they   shall   first   circle   of   a   family   and   171.6   AND   free   of    
secure   the   necessary   accreditation   from   the   Intellectual   Property   that   charge.    
Office.  (Sec.  32,  P.D.  No.  49a)   family’s   closest   social    
  acquaintances   are   or    
How  is  it  practical  for  the  copyright  owner?     can   be   present,    
Is   it   possible   for   the   individual   copyright   owner   to   enforce   his   irrespective  of    
rights  in  all  parts  of  the  country?   whether  they  are  or  can    
 I  don’t  think  so.   be   present   at   the   same    
So  he  needs  someone  or  a  group  to  represent  him  for  him  to  be   place   and   at   the   same    
represented   in   any   act   enforcing   and   managing   his   copyright.   time,    
Of   course   there   are   concessions.   If   you   designate   the   Society,   or   at   different   places    
you   also   have   to   give   something   to   the   Society-­‐   which   is   to   and/or   at   different    
waive   certain   rights,   e.g.,   right   to   claim   full   amount   in   case   times,   and   where   the    
there’s  award  for  damages.     performance    
The   Society   has   more   man-­‐power,   has   more   capability   of   can   be   perceived    
enforcing  certain  rights  of  individuals.  So  it  is  very  practical  for   without   the   need   for    
copyright   owners   (authors,   composers,   literary   artists)   to   communication   within    
designate   a   Society.   Once   there   is   a   designation   of   a   Society,   the  meaning    
that   specific   Society   is   given   the   personality-­‐   the   authority   to   of  Subsection  171.3;    
represent   these   copyright   owners   when   it   comes   to   enforcing    
that  right.      
  AQ:   “if   made   strictly   for   a   charitable   or   religious   institution   or  
What  does  enforcing  a  copyright  include?   society”  
Ø The  right  to  send  letters  asking  for  other  persons  to  restrain   This   time,   it   doesn’t   matter   if   it’s   free   or   charge   or   not.   Because  
themselves  from  performing  or  further  performing  infringing   we   know   that   for   charitable   or   religious   institutions,   it’s   not  
acts.     entirely   intended   solely   for   profit.   It   is   for   some   beneficiaries.   So  
Ø The   right   to   file   a   case   in   the   name   of   the  copyright   owner   there  is  no  intention  to  make  profit  out  of  such  endeavor.    
(ex,  Filipino  Society  of  Composers  vs  Tan)    
-­‐  Does  this  involve  a  transfer  of  Ownership?   So  what  have  you  judged  so  far  out  of  the  first  limitation?  Does  it  
No.  It  only  ALLOWS  that  specific  Society  to  represent,   interfere  with  the  economic  interest  of  the  author?  NO.    
not  to  acquire  ownership.      
  So  the  “recitation/performance”  
AQ:  The  law  says:  For  you  to  be  able  to  represent,  you  must  be  an   l has   not   been   qualified   whether   for   a   portion   or   for   the  
accredited  Society.     whole  work.  Therefore,  the  term  “recitation  of  performance”  
So  there’s  an  accreditation  process  provided  in  IPO.   covers  not  just  a  portion  but  could  be  the  entire  work.  And  is  
Before,   there   was   no   process   for   this.   So   in   order   to   done   privately   and   free   of   charge,   or   by   charitable   or  
designate   a   Society,   the   IPO   lobbied   for   the   amendment   for   a   religious  institutions.    
Society  to  be  able  to  lawfully  represent  certain  artists,  it  must  be    
an  accredited  society.   B.  ACT  OF  MAKING  QUOTATIONS  
  SEC.   184   (b).  The  making  of  quotations  from  a  published   work   if  
9.  LIMITATIONS  OF  COPYRIGHT   they  are  compatible  with  fair  use  and  only  to  the  extent  justified  
  for  the  purpose,  including  quotations  from  newspaper  articles  and  
a.  Limitations  On  Copyright-­‐  Sec  184;  184.1  (a)  to  (l);  184.2   periodicals   in   the   form   of   press   summaries:   Provided,   That   the  
  source  and  the  name  of  the  author,  if  appearing  on  the  work,  are  
SEC.   184.   Limitations   on   Copyright.   -­‐   184.1.  Notwithstanding  the   mentioned;  (Sec.  11,  third  par.,  P.D.  No.  49)  
provisions   of   Chapter   V,   the   following   acts   shall   not   constitute    
infringement  of  copyright:   What   do   you   mean   by   publication?   When   can   a   work   be  
  considered  having  been  published?    
A.  ACT  OF  RECITATION  OR  PERFORMANCE    
Sec.  184  (a).  The  recitation  or  performance  of  a  work,  once  it  has   SEC..  171.7.  "Published  works"  means:  
been  lawfully   works,   which,   with   the   consent   of   the   authors,   are   made  
made   accessible   to   the   public,   if   done   privately   and   free   of   charge   available   to   the   public   by  wire   or   wireless   means   in   such   a  
or  if   way   that     embers   of   the   public   may   access   these   works  
made   strictly   for   a   charitable   or   religious   institution   or   society;   from   a   place   and   time   individually   chosen   by   them:  
(Sec.   Provided,  That  availability  of  such  copies  has  been  such,  as  
10(1),  P.D.  No.49)   to   satisfy   the   reasonable     rrequirements   of   the   public,  
  having  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  work.  
Requirements:    
1. recitation  or  performance  of  a  work;   AQ:   So   there   is   publication   already   when   it   has   been   made  
2. that  work  has  been  made  accessible  to  the  public;   available  to  the  public  by  wire  or  wireless  means.  Of  course,  with  
3. Recitation/  performance  was  done  privately  and  free  of  charge   the  consent  of  the  authors.    
OR  made  strictly  for  a  charitable  or  religious  institution  or  society    
  What  is  the  act  involved  in  paragraph  b?  
Q:   Take   note   of   the   qualifying   clause   “once   it   has   been   lawfully   The  act  of  making  use  of  quotations  from  a  published   work  if  they  
made  accessible  to  the  public”  and  another  qualifying  statement:   are   compatible   with   fair   use   and   only   to   the   extent   justified   for  
“if  done  privately  and  free  of  charge”   the  purpose.  
   
So   public   or   private.   But   when   is   it   public   and   when   is   it   AQ:   The   law   does   not   qualify   how   long   the   quotation   should   be.  
private?     But  when  you  say  “quote”,  what  is  the  definition  of  this  term?  
Only   a   portion.   There   is   no   substantive   reproduction   in  
quote.    
 
  “…only  to  the  extent  justified  for  the  purpose”    
So  if  you’re  making  a  literary  work,  a  thesis  perhaps,  you  can   E.   ACT   OF   INCLUSION   OF   A   WORK     IN   A   PUBLICATION,  
use   a   portion   of   a   published   work   and   only   up   to   that   extent   in   BROADCAST,  OR  OTHER  COMMUNICATION  THE  PUBLIC  
order  to  support  the  content  of  your  work.      
  SEC.   184   (e).  The  inclusion  of  a  work  in  a  publication,  broadcast,  or  
“including  quotations  from  newspaper  articles  and  periodicals   other  communication  to  the  public,  sound  recording  or  film,  if  such  
in   the   form   of   press   summaries:   Provided,   That   the   source   and   inclusion  is  made  by  way  of  illustration  for  teaching  purposes  and  
the   name   of   the   author,   if   appearing   on   the   work,   are   is  compatible  with  
mentioned”   fair  use:  Provided,  That  the  source  and  of  the  name  of  the  author,  
So   we   are   allowed   to   make   quotations   as   long   as   we   don’t   if  appearing  in  the  work,  are  mentioned.  
plagiarize.  We  don’t  claim  a  certain  work  to  be  our  own  work.  So    
you   cite   your   source.   As   long   as   the   name   of   the   author   appears   AQ:   Of   course   some   of   you   must   have   seen   the   film   “Heneral  
on  your  work  as  mentioned.   Luna.”  Most  schools  have  already  incorporated  this  film  as  part  of  
  their   study   of   History.   So   there   is   a   film   showing   of   the   ENTIRE  
C.  ACT  OF  REPRODUCTION  OR  COMMUNICATION  TO  THE  PUBLIC   movie   to   the   students.   So   how   do   you   characterize   that   act   of  
  showing  the  film  to  the  students?  Infringement  or  Fair  Use?  
SEC..  184  (c).  The   reproduction   or     communication   to   the   public   by    
mass   media   of   articles   on   current   political,   social,   economic,   Is   it   for   teaching   purposes?   YES.   So   as   long   as   you   attribute   the  
scientific  or  religious  topic,  lectures,  addresses  and  other  works  of   source   or   owner   of   the   copyright,   this   is   allowed   as   a   limitation  to  
the   same   nature,   which   are   delivered   in   public   if   such   use   is   for   copyright.  
information   purposes   and   has   not   been   expressly   reserved:    
Provided,  That  the  source  is  clearly  indicated;   F.   ACT   OF   INCLUDING   A   WORK   FOR   PURPOSES   OF   BROADCAST  
(Sec.  11,  P.D.  No.  49)   FOR  EDUCATIONAL  INSTUTIONS  
   
“mass  media”   SEC.   184   (f).   The   recording   made   in   schools,   universities,   or  
Includes:  television,  radio,  social  media   educational   institutions   of   a   work   included   in   a   broadcast   for   the  
  use   of   such   schools,   universities   or   educational   institutions:  
AQ:  For  me,  this  enumeration  is  somehow  superfluous  because  it   Provided,  That  such  recording  must  be  deleted  within  a  reasonable  
technically  covers  everything.   period  after  they  were  first  broadcast:  Provided,  further,  That  such    
recording  may  not  be  made  from  audiovisual  works  which  are  part  
E   F   of   the   general   cinema   repertoire   of   feature   films   except   for   brief  
Broader   scope:   Scope:   Schools,   universities   or   excerpts  of  the  work.  
publication,   educational  institutions    
broadcast,   or     AQ:  How  is  it  different  from  letter  E?  
other   *Requirement:    
communication   Must   be   deleted   for   a    
reasonable   period   after   G.  ACT  OF  MAKING  TEMPORARY  RECORDINGS  FOR  BROADCAST  
broadcast   (this   is   open   to    
interpretation.   How   long   is   SEC.   184   (g).   The   making   of   ephemeral   recordings   by   a  
reasonable?)   broadcasting   organization   by   means   of   its   own   facilities   and   for  
    use  in  its  own  broadcast.  
“has  not  been  expressly  reserved”    
AQ:  when  an  author  publishes  a  work,  you  can  find  in  the  first  few   AQ:  This  covers  all  types  of  work.  
pages  of  the  book  a  notice  that  he  is  reserving  all  his  rights:  “ALL    
RIGHTS  RESERVED”.   H.  THE  USE  OF  A  WORK  FOR  PUBLIC  INTEREST  
He   will   not   allow   an   implied   authorization   to   any   and   all   of   his    
rights.   SEC.  184  (h).  The  use  made  of  a  work  by  or  under  the  direction  or  
So   if   there’s   that   indication,   then   strictly,   there   must   not   be   any   control   of   the   Government,   by   the   National   Library   or   by  
performance  of  his  work  without  his  authorization.     educational,  scientific  or  professional  institutions  where  such  use  is  
  in  the  public  interest  and  is  compatible  with  fair  use.  
Ate   Kit:   Sir,   if   for   example   in   Facebook,   I   shared   a   post   about   a    
movie.  But  instead  of  using  the  link,  I  only  screenshot  it.  Is  this  a   AQ:  Does  it  have  to  be  undertaken  by  the  Government  directly?  
violation?   NO,  this  could  be  undertaken  by  a  private  entity,  as  long  as  it  
  is   under   the   direction   or   control   of   the   Government;   just   like   in  
AQ:  What  was  the  intention  of  the  person  who  shared  it?  Is  it  to   the  case  of  ABS-­‐CBN  v  PMSI  
promote   the   movie?  Then  that’s  better,  because  you  are  helping    
the  creator  to  gain  profit.  I  don’t  think  he  will  object  to  that.  For   I.   ACT   OF   PUBLIC   PERFORMANCE   OF   A   WORK   WITHOUT  
me  it  is  not  a  violation.   ADMISSION  FEE  
When   we   examine   carefully   these   acts,   we   have   to   place    
ourselves   in   the   shoes   of   the   copyright   owner.   When   you   SEC.  184  (i).  The  public  performance  or  the  communication  to  the  
committed   the   act,   check   if:   is   it   damaging   to   the   economic   public  of  a  work,  in  a  place  where  no  admission  fee  is  charged  in  
interest  of  the  owner?  I  don’t  think  so.  In  fact,  you  were  helping  in   respect  of  such  public  performance  or  communication,  by  a  club  or  
promoting  his  movie.  I  really  do  not  think  he  will  object  to  that.   institution  for  charitable  or  educational  purpose  only,  whose  aim  is  
  not   profit   making,   subject   to   such   other   limitations   as   may   be  
D.   ACT   OF   REPRODUCTION   AND   COMMUNICATION   TO   THE   provided  in  the  regulations.  
PUBLIC    
  AQ:  How  do  you  compare  this  with  par.  a?  
SEC.  184(d).  The  reproduction  and    communication  to  the  public  of  
literary,   scientific   or   artistic   works   as   part   of   reports   of   current  
events  by  means  of  photography,  cinematography  or  broadcasting  
to  the  extent  necessary  for  the  purpose;  (Sec.  12,  P.D.  No.  49)  
 
AQ:   We   always   find   in   the   news   reports   on   TV   certain   events-­‐  
social   events,   upcoming   movie,   books,   or   shows   to   be   released.  
But  it  has  some  significance  because  it  has  some  social  relevance-­‐  
relevance  to  current  affairs.  In  other  words,  they  are  news-­‐worthy.  
So   is   this   allowed?   YES,   as   long   as   it   is   for   the   purposes   of  
information  to  the  public.  
  
J.  ACT  OF  PUBLIC  DISPLAY  OF  A  WORK   A  (REPRODUCTION)   I   (ACT   OF   PUBLIC  
  PERFORMANCE)  
SEC.  184  (j).  Public  display  of  the  original  or  a    copy  of  the  work  not   Recitation   or   Public   performance   or  
made   by   means   of   a   film,   slide,   television   image   or   otherwise   on   performance  of  a  work   communication   to   the   public  
screen  or  by  means  of  any  other  device  or  process:  Provided,  That   of  a  work  
either   the   work   has   been   published,   or,   that   the   original   or   the   Only   covers   certain   Could   be   performance   or   any  
copy   displayed   has   been   sold,   given   away   or   otherwise   transferred   types   of   work   other   work   that   is  
to  another  person  by  the  author  or  his  successor  in  title.   exclusively   for   communicated  to  the  public.    
  recitation   or   It   does   not   limit   itself   it   works  
AQ:   Let’s   say   for   instance   a   person   is   a   collector   of   artworks-­‐   performance   capable  of  being  performed  or  
paintings   or   sculptures.   Since   he   has   a   vast   collection,   he   has   to   recited.  
boast   or   show   it   off   to   his   friends   and   to   the   public.   So   he   opened  
an  exhibit.   May   be   for   profit-­‐ No   profit   making;   free   of  
  making  or  not.   charge  
The  law  says:    the  right   to   public   display  is  exclusively  owned  by    
the  copyright  owner.  exception:  Public  display  of  the  original  or  a   “Normal  exploitation”  
copy   of   the   work   not   made   by   means   of   a   film,   slide,   television   AQ:  it  has  something  to  do  with  the  economic  expectation.    
image  or  otherwise  on  screen  or  by  means  of  any  other  device  or    
process.    
  PACITA  I.  HABANA,  ALICIA  L.  CINCO  and  JOVITA  N.  FERNANDO  vs.  
AQ:   Say   his   collection   is   sculptures,   paintings   or   3-­‐Dimensional   FELICIDAD  C.  ROBLES  and  GOODWILL  TRADING  CO.,  INC.  
works,   is   it   covered   under   par.   J?   Is   the   collector   exempt   from   any   G.R.  No.  131522,  July  19,  1999  
liability  if  he  decides  to  open  an  exhibit?   FACTS:  
ANSWER:  The  law  says  it  is  allowed  since  the  limitation  applies  to    Pacita   Habana   et   al.,   are   authors   and   copyright   owners   of   duly  
all  types  of  work  as  long  as  it  is  not  made  by  means  of  a  film,  slide,   issued   of   the   book,   College   English   For   Today   (CET).   Respondent  
television  image  or  otherwise  on  screen  or  by  means  of  any  other   Felicidad   Robles   was   the   author   of   the   book   Developing   English  
device   or   process.   Provided,   that   either   the   work   has   been   Proficiency   (DEP).   Petitioners   found   that   several   pages   of   the  
published,  or,  that  the  original  or  the  copy  displayed  has  been  sold,   respondent's   book   are   similar,   if   not   all   together   a   copy   of  
given   away   or   otherwise   transferred   to   another   person   by   the   petitioners'   book.   Habana   et   al.   filed   an   action   for   damages   and  
author  or  his  successor  in  title.   injunction,   alleging   respondent’s   infringement   of   copyrights,   in  
  violation   of   P.D.   49.   They   allege   respondent   Felicidad   C.   Robles  
K.  ACT  OF  USING  A  WORK  IN  JUDICIAL  PROCEEDINGS  OR  GIVING   being  substantially  familiar  with  the  contents  of  petitioners'  works,  
LEGAL  ADVICE   and   without   securing   their   permission,   lifted,   copied,   plagiarized  
  and/or  transposed  certain  portions  of  their  book  CET.  
SEC.   184.  Any  use  made  of  a  work  for  the  purpose  of  any  judicial    
proceedings   or   for   the   giving   of   professional   advice   by   a   legal   On   the   other   hand,   Robles   contends   that   the   book   DEP   is   the  
practitioner.   product   of   her   own   intellectual   creation,   and   was   not   a   copy   of  
  any   existing   valid   copyrighted   book   and   that   the   similarities   may  
AQ:  So  a  lawyer  can  use  any  copyrighted  work  as  long  as  it  is  for   be   due   to   the   authors'   exercise   of   the   "right   to   fair   use   of  
the   purpose   of   giving   professional   advice   or   it   is   done   for   the   copyrighted  materials,  as  guides."  
purpose  of  any  judicial  proceedings.    
  The   trial   court   ruled   in   favor   of   the   respondents,   absolving   them  
Not   too   long   ago,   a   Supreme   Court   Justice   del   Castillo.   was   of  any  liability.     Later,  the  Court  of  Appeals  rendered  judgment  in  
criticized  for  using  published  works  as  part  of  his  ponentia.  He  was   favor  of  respondents  Robles  and  Goodwill  Trading  Co.,  Inc.  In  this  
filed   with   an   Administrative   complaint   and   was   accused   of   appeal,   petitioners   submit   that   the   appellate   court   erred   in  
plagiarism.   The   case   was   about   comfort   women   and   he   cited   affirming  the  trial  court's  decision.  
several   foreign   authors   without   acknowledging   them.   One   of   his    
defenses  was  that:  it  is  one  of  the  limitations  of  copyright  as  it  was   ISSUE:    
used  “in  any  judicial  proceedings”.  However,  this  term  should  not   Whether  Robles  committed  infringement  in  the  production  of  DEP.  
be   interpreted   to   cover   any   type   of   act   without   regard   to   the    
rights  of  the  authors.  More  particularly,  the  right   to   be   attributed.   HELD:    
That’s   the   essence   of   plagiarism,   actually   if   you   claim   a   work   as   A   perusal   of   the   records   yields   several   pages   of   the   book   DEP   that  
your  own.   are  similar  if  not  identical  with  the  text  of  CET.  The  court  finds  that  
Yes,   it   may   be   for   judicial   proceedings.   However   he   copied   it   respondent   Robles'   act   of   lifting   from   the   book   of   petitioners  
verbatim.  He  did  not  even  attempt  to  paraphrase  nor  citing  any  of   substantial   portions   of   discussions   and   examples,   and   her   failure  
the   authors..   Despite   this,   he   was   exonerated   from   any   liability.   to   acknowledge   the   same   in   her   book   is   an   infringement   of  
The   Supreme   Court   held   that   unfortunately,   there   really   is   no   petitioners'  copyrights.  
exact  definition  of  “plagiarism”  in  our  laws.  That  may  be  true,  but    
for   me,   you   do   not   have   to   interpret   or   investigate   further   the   In   the   case   at   bar,   the   least   that   respondent   Robles   could   have  
provision   especially   pertaining   to   moral   rights.   IDK,   I’m   out   of   done  was  to  acknowledge  petitioners  Habana  et.  al.  as  the  source  
words  (In  Re:  Del  Castillo).   of  the  portions  of  DEP.  The  final  product  of  an  author's  toil  is  her  
  book.   To   allow   another   to   copy   the   book   without   appropriate  
L.   ACT   OF   REPRODUCTION   OR   DISTRIBUTION   OF   PUBLISHED   acknowledgment  is  injury  enough.  
WORK  IN  A  SPECIALIZED  FORMAT    
  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  Discussion  during  Recits  of  Birth  Sword-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  
SEC.   184   (l).   The  reproduction  or  distribution  of  published  articles    
or   materials   in   a   specialized   format   exclusively   for   the   use   of   the   AQ:  In  this  case,  the  Court  gave  us  the  definition  of  Infringement  
blind,  visually-­‐  and  reading-­‐impaired  persons:  Provided,  That  such   of  Copyright  
copies   and   distribution   shall   be   made   on   a   nonprofit   basis   and   n A  trespass  on  a  private  domain  owned  and  occupied  by  
shall   the  owner  of  a  copyright  and  is  therefore,  conflicted  by  law  
  n Synonymous  to  Piracy:  
SEC.   184.2.   The   provisions   of   this   section   shall   be   interpreted   in   u Consists  of  doing  by  any  person    
such   a   way   as   to   allow   the   work   to   be   used   in   a   manner   which     (without  the  consent  of  the      
does   not   conflict   with   the   normal   exploitation   of   the   work   and     copyright  owner)  of  any  of  his      
does   not   unreasonably   prejudice   the   right   holder's   legitimate     sole  rights  to  do  (which  is      
interests.     confirmed  by  the  statute)  as  the       owner  
  of  the  copyright  
So   this   supports   the   principle   that  copyright   is   a   statutory   right.   obtaining   the   information   necessary   to   achieve  
Any   act   of   trespass   on   the   exclusive   and   statutory   rights   is   such  interoperability  
considered  as  infringement.    
  Factors  in  Determining  Fair  Use:  
What  are  the  exclusive  rights  that  are  available  to  the  author?     (a)  The  purpose  and  character  of  the  use,  including  whether  such  
SEC.  177   use   is   of   a   commercial   nature   or   is   for   non-­‐profit   educational  
1.  Right  to  make  a  Reproduction   purposes;  
2.  Right  to  make  Dramatization  or  Derivative  Works   (b)  The  nature  of  the  copyrighted  work;  
3.  Right  to  First  Public  Distribution   (c)   The   amount   and   substantiality   of   the   portion   used   in   relation  
4.   Right   to   the   Rental   of   the   original   or   copy   of   an   to  the  copyrighted  work  as  a  whole;  and  
audiovisual  or  cinematographic  world   (d)   The   effect   of   the   use   upon   the   potential   market   for   or   value   of  
5.  Right  to  the  Public  display  of  the  original    or  a  copy  of  the   the  copyrighted  work.  
work    
6.  Right  to  the  Public  performance  of  the  work;  and   A.  Purpose  and  Character  of  the  Use  
7.  Right  to  the  Other  communication  to       No   intention   to   earn;   not   a   profit-­‐making   endeavor   (Criticism,  
  the  public  of  the  work     Comment,  News  Reporting)  
   
In   contrast,   the   Court   also   provided   certain   provisions   that   B.  Nature  of  the  Copyrighted  Work  
limits  the  copyright,  as  cited  in  SEC.   184   (Limitations  on  Copyright),   Jurisprudence:   In   judging   the   nature,   dichotomize   into   2   types   of  
specifically,  par.  E  :   work:  (1)  literary  or  artistic,  OR  (1)  fact  based  
“The  inclusion  of  a  work  in  a  publication,  broadcast,  or    
other   n Literary  or  artistic-­‐  songs,  fiction  novel  
communication   to   the   public,   sound   recording   or   film,   n Fact  based:  books,  nonfiction  novel  
if  such  inclusion  is    
made   by   way   of   illustration   for   teaching   purposes   and   Significance  of  Identifying  whether  Essentially  Literary  or  Artistic  vs  
is   compatible   with   fair   use:   Provided,   That   the   source   Fact  Based  
and  of  the  name  of  the  author,  if  appearing  in  the  work,   n Literary  or  Artistic-­‐-­‐-­‐  Infringement  
are  mentioned.”   n Fact  based-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐Fair  use  
   
This  is  actually  the  pivotal  point  where  the  Court  ruled  that   C.    The  amount  and  substantiality  of  the  portion  used  in  relation  
unfortunately,   Miss   Robles   did   not   cite   her   source.   So   she   is   to  the  copyrighted  work  as  a  whole  
reliable   for   copyright   infringement.   The   act   of   copying   must   be   n Discussed  in  Habana  v  Robles  
judged  based  on  the  facts  established.  And  as  established,  it  was    
found   out   that   she   really   did   not   cite   her   source.   Therefore,   she   is   D.  The  effect  of  the  use  upon  the  potential  market  for  or  value  of  
not  covered  under  the  fair  use  doctrine.     the  copyrighted  work.  
  l Does  the  activity  serve  as  a  barrier  for  the  author  to  explore  
How   is   a   Reproduction   Considered   a   Substantial   Reproduction   of   this  potential  market?  If  yes,  then  it  is  an  act  of  infringement.  
the  Work   l Is  it  prejudicial  to  the  owner?  If  yes,  then  it  is  infringement  
SC:   It   does   not   necessarily   require   that   the   copyrighted   work   be    
copied.   If   so   much   is   taken   that   the   value   of   the   original   work   is   Significance  of  the  Four  Factors:  
substantially   diminished,   then   there   is   infringement   of   copyright.   Jurisprudence:  It  does  not  require  that  these  4  factors  be  present  
And  has  injuries  effect  when  the  work  is  appropriated.     so   as   to   consider   a   work   as   fair   use   or   not.   So   long   as   the   work  
  does  not  prejudice  the  economic  expectation  of  the  owner,  then  it  
“Substantial  portion”   is  fair  use.  
u Considered   as   the   heart   of   the   work-­‐   the   work   being    
popular  because  of  that  portion      
  A&M  Records  Inc.  vs.  Napster  Inc.  No.  00-­‐16401  (U.S.  Court  
Copying   alone   is   not   what   is   prohibited.   The   copying   must   Decision)  
produce  an  injurious  effect.   Facts    
  Napster   was   a   web-­‐based   company   for   the   purpose   of   providing   a  
AQ:   In  the  case,  here  the  injury  happened  when  Robles  lifted  from   platform   for   users   to   exchange   digital   music   with   other   users.  
Habana’s   work   the   book   materials   that   were   the   results   of   A&M   saw   the   potential   negative   impact   of   this   service   to   their  
Habana’s   laborious   and   extensive   research,   and   misrepresented   sales,   and   thus   filed   copyright   suit   against   Napster.   A&M   alleged  
them   as   her   own.   She   circulated   the   book   for   commercial   use   that   Napster   was   a   contributor   to   the   copyright   infringements  
without   acknowledging   Habana   as   her   source.   If   you   examine   against   their   company.   Napster’s   defense   was   such   that   in   order  
carefully,   it   was   Sec.   184   (e)   that   was   heavily   relied   upon   by   the   for  their  company  to  be  liable  for  contributory  infringement,  their  
Supreme  Court  in  coming  up  with  the  decision.     users   had   to   be   directly   infringing   on   A&M’s   copyrights.   Napster  
  claimed   that   this   was   not   the   case,   but   their   users   were   instead  
b.  Fair  Use  of  Copyright  Work-­‐  Sec  185,  as  amended   engaging   in   three   types   of   fair   use:   sampling,   space-­‐shifting,   and  
  permissive   distribution.   Napster   also   provided   a   solution   to   the  
SEC.  185.  Fair  Use  of  a  Copyrighted  Work.   alleged  infringement  in  the  form  of  a  compulsory  license,  in  which  
185.1   Fair  use  of  a  copyrighted  work  for  the  ff  purposes  is  not  an   the   government   would   force   the   copyright   holders   to   grant   use   to  
infringement  of  copyright:   Napster   potentially   in   exchange   for   royalties.   The   U.S.   District  
1. criticism   Court   ruled   in   favor   of   A&M   and   issued   an   injunction   by   which  
2. Comment   Napster  should  further  refrain  from  providing  their  service.    
3. news  reporting   The   9th   Circuit   Federal   Court   of   Appeals   found   that   it   was   clear  
teaching   including   limited   number   of   copies   for     the  defendants  violated  at  least  one  of  the  copyright  holders’  five  
classroom   use,   scholarship,   research,   and   similar   exclusive   rights:   the   right   to   reproduce,   prepare   derivative   work,  
purposes     distribute,   perform,   and   display.   The   appellate   court   found   that  
  “Napster   users   infringe   at   least   two   of   the   copyright   holders’  
**  Decompilation-­‐   exclusive   rights:   the   rights   of   reproduction,   §   106(1);   and  
l the  reproduction  of  the   distribution,  §  106(3).”  The  courts  deduced  that  by  uploading  files  
code   and   translation   of   the   forms   of   a     to   the   Napster   search   index,   users   were   violating   the   plaintiff’s  
computer   program   to   achieve   the   right   to   reproduction   and   by   downloading   files   containing  
interoperability   of   an   independently   created     copyrighted   music   were   violating   their   right   to   distribution.   The  
computer  program  with  other  programs   court   decided   that   the   defendants   had   the   ability   to   prevent  
l Constitutes   fair   use   as   to   the   extent   that   such   infringement  from  taking  place,  and  thus  has  the  duty  to  do  so.    
decompilation   is   done   for   the   purpose   of   Issues    
Whether   or   not   Napster   violated   one   of   the   exclusive   copyright   of  
A&M?    
Whether  or  not  it  constitutes  fair  use?    
Held    
The   court   also   examined   Napster’s   fair   use   claims   using   the   four  
fair   use   factors:   purpose   and   character   of   the   use,   nature   of   the  
use,  portion  used,  effect  of  use  on  the  market.  The  court  decided  
that   Napster’s   argument   for   sampling   did   not   hold,   because   the  
“samples”  were  in  fact  permanent  and  complete  files  on  the  users’  
hard  drives.  Also,  Napster’s  space-­‐shifting  argument  did  not  hold,  
because   the   users   were   not   just   simply   converting   their   media  
between   formats   for   storage,   but   were   sharing   the   files   as   well.  
No   decision   was   made   on   the   argument   of   permissive  
reproduction,   because   the   plaintiffs   did   not   challenge   this   use.  
Finally,   the   court   rejected   Napster’s   request   for   a   compulsory  
license,   citing   that   such   a   device   would   provide   Napster   with   an  
“easy   out”   while   seemingly   punishing   the   copyright   holders.  
(Cornell)