Salinas vs Ching

Being plain automotive spare parts that must conform to the original structural design
of the components they seek to replace, the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle
Bearing Cushion are not ornamental. They lack the decorative quality or value that must
characterize authentic works of applied art. They are not even artistic creations with
incidental utilitarian functions or works incorporated in a useful article. In actuality, the
personal properties described in the search warrants are mechanical works, the
principal function of which is utility sans any aesthetic embellishment.

Kho vs CA

Petitioner has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use of the subject trade
name and its container. The name and container of a beauty cream product are proper
subjects of a trademark inasmuch as the same falls squarely within its definition. In
order to be entitled to exclusively use the same in the sale of the beauty cream product,
the user must sufficiently prove that she registered or used it before anybody else did.
The petitioner'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.

Pearl & Dean vs Shoemart

ON THE ISSUE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

The Court of Appeals correctly held that the copyright was limited to the drawings alone
and not to the light box itself.

Although petitioner’s copyright certificate was entitled “Advertising Display Units”

(which depicted the box-type electrical devices), its claim of copyright infringement
cannot be sustained.

Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. Accordingly, it can
cover only the works falling within the statutory enumeration or description.

Even as we find that P & D indeed owned a valid copyright, the same could have referred
only to the technical drawings within the category of “pictorial illustrations.” It could not
have possibly stretched out to include the underlying light box. The light box was not a
literary or artistic piece which could be copyrighted under the copyright law.
The Court reiterated the ruling in the case of Kho vs. Court of Appeals, differentiating
patents, copyrights and trademarks, namely:

A trademark is any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or

services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked
container of goods. In relation thereto, a trade name means the name or designation
identifying or distinguishing an enterprise. Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is
confined to literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the
literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation. Patentable
inventions, on the other hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field of
human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable.

ON THE ISSUE OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Petitioner never secured a patent for the light boxes. It therefore acquired no patent
rights which and could not legally prevent anyone from manufacturing or commercially
using the contraption. To be able to effectively and legally preclude others from copying
and profiting from the invention, a patent is a primordial requirement. No patent, no
protection.

ON THE ISSUE OF TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

On the issue of trademark infringement, the petitioner’s president said “Poster Ads” was
a contraction of “poster advertising.” P & D was able to secure a trademark certificate for
it, but one where the goods specified were “stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes,
calling cards and newsletters.” Petitioner admitted it did not commercially engage in or
market these goods. On the contrary, it dealt in electrically operated backlit advertising
units which, however, were not at all specified in the trademark certificate.

Assuming arguendo that “Poster Ads” could validly qualify as a trademark, the failure of
P & D to secure a trademark registration for specific use on the light boxes meant that
there could not have been any trademark infringement since registration was an
essential element thereof.

Manly Sportwear Manufacturing v. Dadodette Enterprises

Besides, no copyright accrues in favor of MANLY despite issuance of the certificates of

registration and deposit16 pursuant to Section 2, Rule 7 of the Copyrights Safeguards
and Regulations which states:

Sec. 2 Effects of Registration and Deposit of Work. The registration and deposit of the
work is purely for recording the date of registration and deposit of the work and shall
not be conclusive as to copyright ownership or the term of the copyrights or the rights of
the copyright owner, including neighboring rights.
At most, the certificates of registration and deposit issued by the National Library and
the Supreme Court Library serve merely as a notice of recording and registration of the
work but do not confer any right or title upon the registered copyright owner or
automatically put his work under the protective mantle of the copyright law. It is not a
conclusive proof of copyright ownership.

Coca-Cola vs Gomez

We conclude that the "hoarding" - as defined and charged by the petitioner - does not
fall within the coverage of the IP Code and of Section 168 in particular. It does not relate
to any patent, trademark, trade name or service mark that the respondents have
invaded, intruded into or used without proper authority from the petitioner. Nor are the
respondents alleged to be fraudulently "passing off" their products or services as those
of the petitioner. The respondents are not also alleged to be undertaking any
representation or misrepresentation that would confuse or tend to confuse the goods of
the petitioner with those of the respondents, or vice versa. What in fact the petitioner
alleges is an act foreign to the Code, to the concepts it embodies and to the acts it
regulates; as alleged, hoarding inflicts unfairness by seeking to limit the opposition's
sales by depriving it of the bottles it can use for these sales.

In this light, hoarding for purposes of destruction is closer to what another law - R.A.
No. 623 - covers,