1.

Santos v. McCullough Printing Company, 12 SCRA 324

Facts: Christmas card design used for commercial purposes without authority from the owner. The design is
without copyright.
Issue: Whether or not the author is entitled for damages?
Ruling: We find that plaintiff is not entitled to a protection, the provision of the Civil Code, notwithstanding.
Paragraph 33 of Patent Office Administrative Order No. 3 (as amended dated September 18, 1947) entitled "Rules of
Practice in the Philippines Patent Office relating to the Registration of Copyright Claims" promulgated pursuant to
Republic Act 165, provides, among others, that an intellectual creation should be copyrighted thirty (30) days after
its publication, if made in Manila, or within sixty (60) day's if made elsewhere, failure of which renders such creation
public property. In the case at bar, even as of this moment, there is no copyright for the design in question. We are
not also prepared to accept the contention of appellant that the publication of the design was a limited one, or that
there was an understanding that only Ambassador Neri should, have absolute right to use the same. In the first
place, if such were the condition then Ambassador Neri would be the aggrieved party, and not the appellant. In the
second place, if there was such a limited publication or prohibition, the same was not shown on the face of the
design. When the purpose is a limited publication, but the effect is general publication, irrevocable rights thereupon
become vested in the public, in consequence of which enforcement of the restriction becomes impossible (Nutt vs.
National Institute, 31 F [2d] 236). It has been held that the effect of offering for sale a dress, for example
manufactured in accordance with an original design which is not protected by either a copyright or a patent, is to
divest the owner of his common law rights therein by virtue of the publication of a 'copy' and thereafter anyone is
free to copy the design or the dress (Fashion Originators Guild of America v. Federal Trade Commission, 114 F
[2d] 80). When Ambassador Neri distributed 800 copies of the design in controversy, the plaintiff lost control of his
design and the necessary implication was that there had been a general publication, there having been no showing of
a clear indication that a limited publication was intended. The author of a literary composition has a light to the first
publication thereof. He has a right to determine whether it shall be published at all, and if published, when, where,
by whom, and in what form. This exclusive right is confined to the first publication. When once published, it is
dedicated to the public, and the author loses the exclusive right to control subsequent publication by others, unless
the work is placed under the protection of the copyright law.
2.
Filipino Society of Composers v. Tan, G.R. No. L-36402, March 16, 1987
Facts: Plaintiff-appellant is a non-profit association of authors, composers and publishers duly organized under the
Corporation Law of the Philippines and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Said association is
the owner of certain musical compositions among which are the songs entitled: "Dahil Sa Iyo", "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay
Akin," "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" and "The Nearness Of You."
On the other hand, defendant-appellee is the operator of a restaurant known as "Alex Soda Foundation and
Restaurant" where a combo with professional singers, hired to play and sing musical compositions to entertain and
amuse customers therein, were playing and singing the above-mentioned compositions without any license or
permission from the appellant to play or sing the same. Accordingly, appellant demanded from the appellee payment
of the necessary license fee for the playing and singing of aforesaid compositions but the demand was ignored.
Issue: Whether or not playing the copyrighted music is an infringement.
Ruling: The Supreme Court has ruled that "Paragraph 33 of Patent Office Administrative Order No. 3 (as amended,
dated September 18, 1947) entitled 'Rules of Practice in the Philippines Patent Office relating to the Registration of
Copyright Claims' promulgated pursuant to Republic Act 165, provides among other things that an intellectual
creation should be copyrighted thirty (30) days after its publication, if made in Manila, or within the (60) days if
made elsewhere, failure of which renders such creation public property." (Santos v. McCullough Printing Company,
12 SCRA 324-325 [1964]. Indeed, if the general public has made use of the object sought to be copyrighted for
thirty (30) days prior to the copyright application the law deems the object to have been donated to the public
domain and the same can no longer be copyrighted.
A careful study of the records reveals that the song "Dahil Sa Iyo" which was registered on April 20, 1956 (Brief for
Appellant, p. 10) became popular in radios, juke boxes, etc. long before registration (TSN, May 28, 1968, pp. 3-5; 25)
while the song "The Nearness Of You" registered on January 14, 1955 (Brief for Appellant, p. 10) had become
popular twenty five (25) years prior to 1968, (the year of the hearing) or from 1943 (TSN, May 28, 1968, p. 27) and
the songs "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin" and "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" both registered on July 10, 1966, appear
to have been known and sang by the witnesses as early as 1965 or three years before the hearing in 1968. The

testimonies of the witnesses at the hearing of this case on this subject were unrebutted by the appellant. (Ibid, pp.
28; 29 and 30).
Under the circumstances, it is clear that the musical compositions in question had long become public property, and
are therefore beyond the protection of the Copyright Law.
3.
Bayanihan vs. BMG, G.R. No. 166337, March 7, 2005
Facts: On July 16, 1973, private respondent Jose Mari Chan (Chan) entered into a contract with petitioner
Bayanihan Music Philippines, Inc. (Bayanihan), whereunder the former assigned to the latter all his rights, interests
and participation over his musical composition "Can We Just Stop and Talk A While". On March 11, 1976, the
parties entered into a similar contract over Chan's other musical composition entitled "Afraid For Love To Fade".
On the strength of the abovementioned contracts, Bayanihan applied for and was granted by the National
Library a Certificate of Copyright Registration for each of the two musical compositions, thus: November 19, 1973,
for the song "Can We Just Stop and Talk A While" and on May 21, 1980, for the song "Afraid for Love To Fade."
Apparently, without the knowledge and consent of petitioner Bayanihan, Chan authorized his co-respondent
BMG Records (Pilipinas) [BMG] to record and distribute the aforementioned musical compositions in a then
recently released album of singer Lea Salonga.
Issue: Whether or not BMG violated the copyright law?
Ruling: Unquestionably, respondent Chan, being undeniably the composer and author of the lyrics of the two (2)
songs, is protected by the mere fact alone that he is the creator thereof, conformably with Republic Act No. 8293,
otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code, Section 172.2 of which reads:
172.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well
as of their content, quality and purpose.
It would thus appear that the two (2) contracts expired on October 1, 1975 and March 11, 1978, respectively, there
being neither an allegation, much less proof, that petitioner Bayanihan ever made use of the compositions within the
two-year period agreed upon by the parties.
Anent the copyrights obtained by petitioner on the basis of the selfsame two (2) contracts, suffice it to say 'that such
purported copyrights are not presumed to subsist in accordance with Section 218[a] and [b], of the Intellectual
Property Code,[10]cralaw because respondent Chan had put in issue the existence thereof.
It is noted that Chan revoked and terminated said contracts, along with others, on July 30, 1997, or almost two
years before petitioner Bayanihan wrote its sort of complaint/demand letter dated December 7, 1999 regarding the
recent "use/recording of the songs 'Can We Just Stop and Talk A While' and 'Afraid for Love to Fade,'" or almost
three (3) years before petitioner filed its complaint on August 8, 2000, therein praying, inter alia, for injunctive
relief. By then, it would appear that petitioner had no more right that is protectable by injunction.
4.
Kho vs. CA, 379 SCRA 410
Facts: The petitioner's complaint alleges that petitioner, doing business under the name and style of KEC
Cosmetics Laboratory, is the registered owner of the copyrights Chin Chun Su and Oval Facial Cream
Container/Case, as shown by Certificates of Copyright Registration No. 0-1358 and No. 0-3678; that she also has
patent rights onChin Chun Su & Device and Chin Chun Su for medicated cream after purchasing the same from
Quintin Cheng, the registered owner thereof in the Supplemental Register of the Philippine Patent Office on
February 7, 1980 under Registration Certificate No. 4529; that respondent Summerville advertised and sold
petitioner's cream products under the brand name Chin Chun Su, in similar containers that petitioner uses, thereby
misleading the public, and resulting in the decline in the petitioner's business sales and income; and, that the
respondents should be enjoined from allegedly infringing on the copyrights and patents of the petitioner.
The respondents, on the other hand, alleged as their defense that Summerville is the exclusive and authorized
importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun Su products manufactured by Shun Yi Factory of Taiwan; that the
said Taiwanese manufacturing company authorized Summerville to register its trade name Chin Chun Su Medicated
Cream with the Philippine Patent Office and other appropriate governmental agencies; that KEC Cosmetics
Laboratory of the petitioner obtained the copyrights through misrepresentation and falsification; and, that the
authority of Quintin Cheng, assignee of the patent registration certificate, to distribute and market Chin Chun Su
products in the Philippines had already been terminated by the said Taiwanese Manufacturing Company.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner has the exclusive title over the distribution and sale of the patented products?

Ruling: Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot be interchanged
with one another. 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.12 In relation thereto, a
trade name means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise.13 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.14 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.15
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.
5.
Unilever vs. Procter & Gamble, G.R. No. 119280, Aug. 8, 2006
Ruling: After a careful perusal of the records, we agree with the CA and affirm its decision in toto:
Petitioner does not deny that the questioned TV advertisements are substantially similar to P&GPs "double tug" or
"tac-tac" key visual. However, it submits that P&GP is not entitled to the relief demanded, which is to enjoin
petitioner from airing said TV advertisements, for the reason that petitioner has Certificates of Copyright
Registration for which advertisements while P&GP has none with respect to its "double-tug" or "tac-tac" key visual.
In other words, it is petitioners contention that P&GP is not entitled to any protection because it has not registered
with the National Library the very TV commercials which it claims have been infringed by petitioner.
We disagree. Section 2 of PD 49 stipulates that the copyright for a work or intellectual creation subsists from the
moment of its creation. Accordingly, the creator acquires copyright for his work right upon its creation. Contrary
to petitioners contention, the intellectual creators exercise and enjoyment of copyright for his work and the
protection given by law to him is not contingent or dependent on any formality or registration. Therefore, taking
the material allegations of paragraphs 1.3 to 1.5 of P&GPs verified Complaint in the context of PD 49, it cannot be
seriously doubted that at least, for purposes of determining whether preliminary injunction should issue during the
pendency of the case, P&GP is entitled to the injunctive relief prayed for in its Complaint.