Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CIVIL CODE
COURSE OUTLINE Art. 712. Ownership is acquired by occupation and by intellectual
creation.
INTRODUCTION
Ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and
A. CONSTITUTION
transmitted by law, by donation, by estate and intestate succession,
and in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition.
ARTICLE XII
Section 6. The use of property bears a social function, and all
economic agents shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and They may also be acquired by means of prescription. (609a)
private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar
collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and Title II. - INTELLECTUAL CREATION
operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to
promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good Art. 721. By intellectual creation, the following persons acquire
so demands. ownership:
Section 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of national
talents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals, (1) The author with regard to his literary, dramatic,
managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled workers and historical, legal, philosophical, scientific or other work;
craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the State. The State shall
encourage appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the (2) The composer; as to his musical composition;
national benefit.
ARTICLE XIV (3) The painter, sculptor, or other artist, with respect to the
product of his art;
SECTION 17. The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights
of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their b) Trademarks and Service Marks;
cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the
formulation of national plans and policies. c) Geographic Indications;
SECTION 18. (1) The State shall ensure equal access to cultural d) Industrial Designs;
opportunities through the educational system, public or private cultural
entities, scholarships, grants and other incentives, and community
e) Patents;
cultural centers, and other public venues.
Who can seek a trademark and what does it protect? The inventor or creator with the patent has the right to choose as to
who can use, sell, or even make something similar during its 2-year
validity period.
Business and product owners file for a trademark. It protects a name,
word, slogan, symbol, design, and/or image identifying a business or
brand and distinguishing it from others in the same field. Throughout the entire duration, a patent’s information must be
available to the public, as the owner is given enough time to gain
ample commercial returns. Some examples of inventions or creations
that can be filed as patents include new and useful machines, products
What are the benefits of a trademark and what is the and processes (non-biological and microbiological in nature);
duration? improvements of machines, products and processes; and
microorganisms.
What are the benefits of copyright and what is the duration? Copyright
Facts: The petitioner alleged that she is the registered owner of the
Petitioner, doing business under the name and style KEC Cosmetics copyrights Chin Chun Su and Oval Facial Cream Container/Case
Laboratory, alleges that it is the registered owner of copyright and as evidenced by certificates of copyright registrations and patent rights
patent registration of the Chin Chun Su container and medicated on Chun Chun Su & Device and Chin Chun Su (medicated cream) after
cream. Hence, petitioner filed a complaint to enjoin respondent she purchased it from Quintin Cheng (previous registered owner in the
Summerville Company from advertising and selling cream products Philippine Patent Office [PPO]).
under the same brand name Chin Chun Su as it will mislead the public
and damage petitioner’s business. The trial court granted the Meanwhile, there was a decline in the petitioner’s business income due
injunction. On appeal, the writ was dissolved. The trial court ruled to to the advertisement and sale made by Summerville on petitioner’s
bar petitioner from using the mark Chin Chun Su. products under the same brand name and in similar containers.
According to Summerville, they are the exclusive and authorized
Issue: importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun Su products
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to the exclusive use of the manufactured by Shun Yi Factory of Taiwan and that said company
trademark Chin Chun Su based on her copyright and patent authorized them to register its trade name “Chin Chun Su Mediated
registration over the product. Cream” with the PPO.
Ruling: NO. The application for preliminary injunction filed by petitioner was
Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property granted. Hence, respondents moved for reconsideration, which was
rights that cannot be interchanged with one another. A trademark is denied. The respondents then moved for nullification of said
any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or preliminary injunction with the CA. The latter granted its petition.
services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or
marked container of goods. In relation thereto, a trade name means
the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise. ISSUE: WON the copyright and patent over the name and container
Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic of the beauty cream product entitle the registrant to its EXCLUSIVE
works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic use and ownership .
domain protected from the moment of their creation. Patentable
inventions, on the other hand, refer to any technical solution of a
problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an HELD:NO. The petitioner has no right for the EXCLUSIVE use of the
inventive step and is industrially applicable. Petitioner has no right to trade name and its container. In order to be entitled to its exclusive
support her claim for the exclusive use of the subject trade name and use, the user must sufficiently prove that she registered or used it
its container. The name and container of a beauty cream product are before anybody else did. This, petitioner failed to do.
proper subjects of a trademark inasmuch as the same falls squarely
within its definition. “Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property
In order to be entitled to exclusively use the same in the sale of the rights that cannot be interchanged with one another. A trademark is
beauty cream product, the user must sufficiently prove that she any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or
registered or used it before anybody else did. The petitioner’s services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or
copyright and patent registration of the name and container would not marked container of goods. In relation thereto, a trade name means
guarantee her right to the exclusive use of the same for the reason the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise.
that they are not appropriate subjects of the said intellectual rights. Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic
Consequently, a preliminary injunction order cannot be issued for the works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic
reason that the petitioner has not proven that she has a clear right domain protected from the moment of their creation.Patentable
over the said name and container to the exclusion of others, not inventions, on the other hand, refer to any technical solution of a
having proven that she has registered a trademark thereto or used the problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an
same before anyone did. inventive step and is industrially applicable”.
Facts:
ElidadKho is the owner of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory and she was also
the holder of copyrights over Chin Chun Su and its Oval Facial Cream
Container/Case. She also bought the patent rights over the Chin Chun
Su & Device and Chin Chun Su for medicated cream from one Quintin
Cheng, who was the assignee of Shun Yi Factory – a Taiwanese
factory actually manufacturing Chin Chun Su products.
Kho filed a petition for injunction against Summerville General
Merchandising and Company to enjoin the latter from advertising and
selling Chin Chun Su products, in similar containers as that of Kho, for
this is misleading the public and causing Kho to lose income; the
petition is also to enjoin Summerville from infringing upon Kho’s
copyrights.
Summerville in their defense alleged that they are the exclusive and
authorized importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun Su
products; that Shun Yi even authorized Summerville to register its
trade name Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream with the Philippine Patent
Office; that Quintin Cheng, from whom Kho acquired her patent rights,
had been terminated (her services) by Shun Yi.
ISSUE: Whether or not Kho has the exclusive right to use the trade
name and its container.
HELD: No. Kho has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use
of the subject trade name and its container. The name and container
of a beauty cream product are proper subjects of a trademark (not
copyrightlike what she registered for) inasmuch as the same falls
squarely within its definition. In order to be entitled to exclusively use
the same in the sale of the beauty cream product, the user must
sufficiently prove that she registered or used it before anybody else
did. Kho’s copyright and patent registration of the name and container
would not guarantee her the right to the exclusive use of the same for
the reason that they are not appropriate subjects of the said
intellectual rights. Consequently, a preliminary injunction order cannot
be issued for the reason that the petitioner has not proven that she
has a clear right over the said name and container to the exclusion of
others, not having proven that she has registered a trademark thereto
or used the same before anyone did.
DISTILLERY, INC.,petitioner Distelleria Washington v. CA, 263 SCRA 303 RIKKI (sorry late)
vs [G.R. No. 120961. October 17, 1996]
LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS, INC. and THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS,respondents. DISTILLERIA WASHINGTON, INC. or WASHINGTON DISTILLERY, INC.,
petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and LA
Facts: TONDEÑA DISTILLERS, INC., respondents.
La Tondeña Distillers, Inc. filed before the Regional Trial Court for the
recovery, under its claim of ownership, of possession or replevin Doctrine: It is to be pointed out that a trademark refers to a word,
against Distilleria Washington, Inc. or Washington Distillery, Inc. of name, symbol, emblem, sign or device or any combination thereof
18,157 empty “350 c.c. white flint bottles” bearing the blown-in marks adopted and used by a merchant to identify, and distinguish from
of “La Tondeña Inc.” and “Ginebra San Miguel,” averring that Distilleria others, his goods of commerce. It is basically an intellectual creation
Washington was using the bottles for its own “Gin Seven” products that is susceptible to ownership and, consistently therewith, gives rise
without the consent of Distilleria Washington in violation of Republic to its own elements of jus posidendi, jus utendi, jus fruendi, jus
Act 623. disponendi, and jus abutendi, along with the applicable jus lex,
comprising that ownership.
In the original decision, the court acknowledged that there was a valid
transfer of the bottles to Distilleria Washington, except that its Facts:
possession of the bottles without the written consent of La Tondeña ·The initiatory suit was instituted on 02 November 1987 with the trial
gives rise to a prima facie presumption of illegal use under R.A. 623. court (docketed Civil Case No. 87-42639) for manual delivery with
damages instituted by La Tondeña Distillers, Inc. (“LTDI”), against
Distilleria Washington (“Washington”).
In seeking reconsideration of the decision, petitioner raises the issue ·LTDI, under a claim of ownership, sought to seize from Distilleria
that if petitioner became the owner over the bottles seized from it by Washington 18,157 empty “350 c.c. white flint bottles” bearing the
replevin, then it has the right to their possession and use as attributes blown-in marks of “La Tondeña Inc.” and “Ginebra San Miguel.” The
of ownership. court, on application of LTDI, issued an order of replevin on 05
November 1987 for the seizure of the empty gin bottles from
The instant case is one for replevin (manual delivery) where the Washington. These bottles, it was averred, were being used by
claimant must be able to show convincingly that he is either the owner Washington for its own “Gin Seven” products without the consent of
or clearly entitled to the possession of the object sought to be LTDI.
recovered. Replevin is a possessory action. The gist of which focuses ·LTDI asserted that, being the owner and registrant of the bottles, it
on the right of possession that in turn, is dependent on a legal basis was entitled to the protection so extended by Republic Act (“R.A.”) No.
that, not infrequently, looks to the ownership of the object sought to 623, as amended, notwithstanding its sale of the Ginebra San Miguel
be replevied. gin product contained in said bottles.
·Washington countered that R.A. No. 623, invoked by LTDI, should not
apply to gin, an alcoholic beverage which is unlike that of “soda water,
mineral or aerated water, ciders, milks, cream, or other lawful
beverages” mentioned in the law, and that, in any case, ownership of
Issue: the bottles should, considering the attendant facts and circumstances,
Since replevin as a possessory action is dependent upon ownership, it be held lawfully transferred to the buyers upon the sale of the gin and
is relevant to ask: Whether or not there was a transfer ownership of La containers at a single price.
Tondeña Distillers’ marked bottles or containers when it sold its ·Trial court ruled: complaint is hereby DISMISSED and plaintiff is
products in the market? Were the marked bottles or containers part of ordered:
the products sold to the public? §“1.To return to defendant the 18,157 empty bottles seized by virtue
of the writ for the Seizure of Personal Property issued by this Court on
November 6, 1987;
§“2. In the event of failure to return said empty bottles, plaintiff is
ordered to indemnify defendant in the amount of P18,157.00
Held:
representing the value of the bottles.
The manufacturer sells the product in marked containers, through
·CA ruled in favor of LTDI: The appellant (LTDI), being the owner, is
dealers, to the public in supermarkets, grocery shops, retail stores and
authorized to retain in its possession the 18,157 bottles registered in
other sales outlets. The buyer takes the item; he is neither required to
its name delivered to it by the sheriff following their seizure from the
return the bottle nor required to make a deposit to assure its return to
appellee pursuant to the writ of replevin issued by the trial court on
the seller. He could return the bottle and get a refund. A number of
November 6, 1987.
bottles at times find their way to commercial users. It cannot be
gainsaid that ownership of the containers does pass on the consumer
Issue: Whether or not ownership of the empty bottles was transferred
albeit subject to the statutory limitations on the use of the registered
to Washington.
containers and to the trademark rights of the registrant.
In plain terms, therefore, La Tondeña not only sold its gin products but
Held: NO.
also the marked bottles or containers, as well. And when these
·It is a fact that R.A. No. 623 extends trademark protection in the use
products were transferred by way of sale, then ownership over the
of containers duly registered with the Philippine Patent Office.
bottles and all its attributes (jus utendi, jus abutendi, just fruendi, jus
·PROVISIONS applied:
disponendi) passed to the buyer. It necessarily follows that the
transferee has the right to possession of the bottles unless he uses
The Court of Appeals reversed said judgment, directing the Director of In any event, the CA’s ruling that the Doctrine of Secondary
Commerce to cancel the registration of the trade-mark "AngTibay" in Meaning be fully sustained is affirmed, because Teodoro’s long and
NATURE:
petition for review on certiorari of the decision & resolution of the
Court of Appeals
FACTS:
petitioners (Shangri-La) assail to set & seek to set aside the decision
of the Court of Appeals & its resolution w/c affirmed w/ modification
an earlier decision of the RTC of QC, an action for infringement &
damages threat commenced by respondent (DCGI) against them.
(i) Shoe Expo was the prior user and adopter of the ‘BIRKENSTOCK’
trade mark in the Philippines.
(ii) Birkenstock did not present evidence of actual use of the mark in
the Philippines.