Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Most of our copyright cases enunciate rules with respect to remedies of copyrigh t holders and enforcement of copyright claims.

The Supreme Court has ruled in th e cases of Columbia Pictures, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals [28 August 1996, 261 SCR A 144] and Columbia Pictures vs. Court of Appeals [20 September 1996, 262 SCRA 2 19] that the presentation of master tapes is not a sine qua non requirement for the issuance of a search warrant in video piracy cases, provided that there is n o doubt as to the true nexus between the master tape and the pirated copies. In the later Columbia Pictures case, it was held that the presentation of the maste r tapes of the copyrighted films should, at most, be understood to merely serve as a guidepost in determining the existence of probable cause in copyright cases . This further clarified the earlier SC rulings in 20th Century Fox Film Corpora tion vs. Court of Appeals [19 August 1995, 164 SCRA 655] and Columbia Pictures, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals [06 October 1994, 237 SCRA 367]. The case of Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. vs. Ramos [GR No. L-32339, 29 March 1 988] laid down the rule that a copyright holder should not be penalized in litig ating his rightful claims by payment of attorney s fees as part of the damages awa rded to the other party if said claims were subsequently dismissed. There are several cases decided by the Supreme Court concerning the right of for eign trademark and/or copyright holders to cancel a local copyright registration . In the case of United Feature Syndicate vs. Munsingwear Creation Manufacturing Company [GR No. 76193, 09 November 1989], the Court ruled in favor of United Fe ature Syndicate as the holder of several trademark and copyright registrations i n various countries over the mark and image "Charlie Brown", although it does no t possess any copyright or trademark registration in the Philippines. The case o f Sambar vs. Levi Strauss & Company [GR No. 132604, 06 March 2002] involved the back pocket design of a Levi Strauss denim over which it has a Philippine tradem ark registration. In Levi s action to cancel a local copyright registration, the S upreme Court ruled in favor of Levi s, holding that the locally copyrighted design sought to be cancelled lacks originality since it closely resembles the Levi St rauss trademark. In this case, it was shown that, due to the close resemblance o f the back pockets, many ordinary consumers were misled into believing that a de nim is a Levi Strauss product when in fact it is not. There is a similar ruling in the case of Wilson Ong Ching Kian Chuan vs. Court of Appeals [GR No. 130360, 15 August 2001] concerning the design of a plastic packaging of vermicelli noodl es. With respect to the subject matter covered by copyright, the cases of Joaquin Jr . vs. Drilon [GR No. 108946, 28 January 1999, 302 SCRA 225] and Kho vs. Court of Appeals [GR No. 115758, 19 March 2002] are relevant and instructive. The Suprem e Court, in the Kho case, defined the proper subject of copyright protection, th at is, works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artis tic domain, and held that the name and container of a beauty product are not cop yrightable, but are proper subjects of trademark. The Court ordered the cancella tion of the local copyright registration over the same in the light of a prior f oreign trademark registration. The Joaquin case tackled the issue of whether or not the format of a television show, i.e., a dating game, is a proper subject of copyright. The Supreme Court a nswered in the negative, finding that under the old law (Presidential Decree 49) , a format of a television show is not included in the enumeration of the classe s of work entitled to copyright protection. Said enumeration, which is substanti ally similar to those contained in the present IP Code, refers to finished works and not to concepts. 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 embodied. The Court further ruled that copyright does not e xtend to the general concept or format of a dating game show. Also, the Court po inted out that although the issue of whether a material is copyrightable or not is a legal question, the Secretary of Justice can make a preliminary determinati

on with respect to such matter.