42 Laktaw v.

Paglinawan

FACTS:
The complaint alleged that
1) Laktaw is registered owner and author of Diccionario Hispano-Tagalog published 1889, Manila by
La Opinon;
2) Paglinawan, without consent, reproduced and copied the greater part in Diccionariong Kastila-
Tagalog and caused irreparable injuries up to $10,000.; and
3) Prayed for Paglinawan to withdraw from sale all stocks and pay him.
o Paglinawan: generally denied
Trial court absolved Paglinawan, no pronouncement as to costs; Laktaw moved for a new trial on the
ground that the judgment was against the law and the weight of the evidence overruled; appealaed to
SC upon bill of exceptions.
Appeal: denied; comparison of the dictionaries does not show that the Paglinawans is an improper
copy of the former, which has been published and offered for sale by Laktaw for about 25 years or
more.

ISSUES + RULING:
Was there infringement?
Article 7 of the Law of January 10, 1879, on Intellectual Property (its 1918 the laws name is weird)
"Nobody may reproduce another person's work without the owner's consent, even merely to annotate
or add anything to it, or improve any edition thereof."
o Therefore, in order that said article may be violated, it is not necessary, as the court below
seems to have understood, that a work should be an improper copy of another work previously
published. It is enough that another's work has been reproduced without the consent of the
owner, even though it be only to annotate, add something to it, or improve any edition thereof.
SC took into account the following and concluded -- DIFFERENT
o Paglinawans memorandum which enumerates the words and terms which, according to him,
are in his dictionary but not in that of the Laktaw, and viceversa, and the equivalents or
definitions given by him which are not similar to those given by Laktaw, as well as the new
Tagalog words which are in his but not in that of Laktaw; and considering the notes,
o First series, presented by Laktaw, in which the terms copied by Paglinawan from the his
dictionary enumerated in detail and in relation to each letter of the alphabet and in which his
own words and terms are set forth, with a summary, at the foot of each group of letters, which
shows the number of initial Spanish words contained in the Paglinawans dictionary, the words
that are his own and the fact that the remaining ones are truly copied from his dictionary.
Differences
o Of the 23,560 Spanish words in the defendant's dictionary, after deducting 17 words
corresponding to the letters K and X (for the plaintiff has no words corresponding to them), only
3,108 words are the defendant's own, or, what is the same thing, the defendant has added only
this number of words to those that are in the plaintiff's dictionary, he having reproduced or
copied the remaining 20,452 words.
o That the defendant also literally reproduced and copied for the Spanish words in his dictionary,
the equivalents, definitions and different meanings in Tagalog, given in plaintiff's dictionary,
having reproduced, as to some words, everything that appears in the plaintiff's dictionary f or
similar Spanish words, although as to some he made some additions of his own. Said copies
and reproductions are numerous as may be seen, by comparing both dictionaries and using as
a -guide or index the defendant's memorandum and notes, first series, Exhibit C, in which, as to
each word, the similarities and differences between them are set forth in detail.
o That the printer's errors in the plaintiff's dictionary as to the expression of some words in
Spanish as well as their equivalents in Tagalog are also reproduced, a fact which shows that the
defendant, in preparing his dictionary, literally copied those Spanish words and their meanings
and equivalents in Tagalog from the plaintiff's dictionary.
Trial Courts random selection of words to compare is inaccurate.
 "The protection of the law cannot be denied to the author of a dictionary, for although words are not the
property of anybody, their definitions, the examples that explain their sense, and the manner of
expressing their different meanings, may constitute a special work.
o Where one in publishing a Spanish-Tagalog dictionary has but copied the equivalents,
definitions and different meanings given in another's Spanish-Tagalog dictionary, although
making some additions of his own and some unimportant changes in the examples to illustrate
the meanings of the words, such as substituting "Tayabas" for "Bulacan" in the expression "Voy
a Bulacan" (I am going to Bulacan), it is evident that he merely reproduced the dictionary of the
other author in violation of the Law.