G.R. NO. 166115. 2 FEBRUARY 2007 McDonalds Corporation vs.

MacJoy Fastfood Corporation

1. In trademark cases, particularly in ascertaining whether one trademark is confusingly similar to another,
no set of rules can be deduced because each case must be decided on its merits in such cases, even more than in
any other litigation, precedent must be studied in the light of the facts of the particular case. That is the reason why in
trademark cases, jurisprudential precedents should be applied only to a case if they are specifically in point.

2. Applying the dominancy test, the Supreme Court found that petitioners and respondents marks are
confusingly similar with each other such that an ordinary purchaser can conclude an association or relation between
the marks. Both marks use the M design logo and the prefixes Mc and /or Mac as dominant features. The first
letter M in both marks puts emphasis on the prefixes Mc and/or Mac by the similar way in which they are
depicted. It is the prefix Mc, an abbreviation of Mac, which visually and aurally catches the attention of the
consuming public. The word MCJOY attracts attention the same way as MCDONALDS, MacFries, McSpaghetti,
McDo, Big Mac and the rest of the McDonaldss marks which all use the prefixes Mc and/or Mac. Most
importantly, both trademarks are used in the sale of fastfood products.

G.R. No. 108946. January 28, 1999.] FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, JR., and BJ PRODUCTIONS, INC., petitioners, vs.
HONORABLE FRANKLIN DRILON, GABRIEL ZOSA, WILLIAM ESPOSO, FELIPE MEDINA,JR., and CASEY FRANCISCO,
respondents

Petitioners Claim:

Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder/grantee of Certificate of Copyright No. M922, dated January 28, 1971, of Rhoda and Me, a
dating game show aired from 1970 to 1977 claims that there is an infringement on the copyright of the show "RHODAAND ME" both in content and
in the execution of the video presentation are established because respondent's "IT'S ADATE" is practically an exact copy of complainant's "RHODA
AND ME" because of substantial similarities. As may [be] gleaned from the evidence on record, the substance of the television productions
complainant's "RHODAAND ME" and Zosa's "IT'S A DATE" is that two matches are made between a male and a female, both single,
and the two couples are treated to a night or two of dining and/or dancing at the expense of the show. The major concepts of both shows
is the same. Any difference appear mere variations of the minor concepts.

Respondents Claim:
Both public and private respondents maintain that petitioners failed to establish the existence of probable cause due to their failure to present the
copyrighted master videotape of Rhoda and Me. They contend that petitioner BJPI's copyright covers only a specific episode of Rhoda and Me
and that the formats or concepts of dating game shows are not covered by copyright protection under P.D. No. 49.

Issue:
Whether the format and mechanics of a TV show may be subject of a copyright.

S.C. Ruling:
To begin with the format of a show is not copyrightable. Section 2 of P.D. No. 49, otherwise known as the DECREE ON
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, enumerates the classes of work entitled to copyright protection, does not include the format or
mechanics of a television show.For this reason, the protection afforded by the law cannot be extended to cover them.
The copyright does not extend to an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form
in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.