Joaquin v drillon

302 SCRA 225 – Mercantile Law – Intellectual Property – Law on Copyright – Game Show
– Ideas and Concepts Not Covered by Copyright – Presentation of the Master Tape
BJ Productions Inc. (BJPI) was the holder of copyright over the show Rhoda and Me. It
holds rights over the show’s format and style of presentation. In 1991, BJPI’s president
Francisco Joaquin saw on TV – RPN 9’s show It’s a Date, a show which is basically the
same as Rhoda and Me. He eventually sued Gabriel Zosa, the manager of the show It’s a
Date. The investigating prosecutor found probable cause against Zosa. Zosa later sought a
review of the prosecutor’s resolution before the Secretary of Justice (Franklin Drilon). Drilon
reversed the findings of the fiscal and directed him to dismiss the case against Zosa.
ISSUE: Whether or not the order of Drilon finding no probable cause is valid.
HELD: Yes. The essence of copyright infringement is the copying, in whole or in part, of
copyrightable materials as defined and enumerated in Section 2 of PD. No. 49 (Copyright
Law). Apart from the manner in which it is actually expressed, however, the idea of a dating
game show is a non-copyrightable material. Ideas, concepts, formats, or schemes in
their abstract form clearly do not fall within the class of works or materials
susceptible of copyright registration as provided in PD. No. 49. What is covered by
BJPI’s copyright is the specific episodes of the show Rhoda and Me.
Further, BJPI should have presented the master videotape of the show in order to show the
linkage between the copyright show (Rhoda and Me) and the infringing show (It’s a Date).
This is based on the ruling in 20th Century Fox vs CA (though this has been qualified by
Columbia Pictures vs CA, this is still good law). Though BJPI did provide a lot of written
evidence and description to show the linkage between the shows, the same were not
enough. A television show includes more than mere words can describe because it involves
a whole spectrum of visuals and effects, video and audio, such that no similarity or
dissimilarity may be found by merely describing the general copyright/format of both dating
game shows.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

CHING V. SALINAS, SR. (G.R. NO. 161295)

Facts:
Petitioner Ching is a maker and manufacturer of a utility model, Leaf Spring
Eye Bushing for Automobile, for which he holds certificates of copyright
registration. Petitioner’s request to the NBI to apprehend and prosecute
illegal manufacturers of his work led to the issuance of search warrants
against respondent Salinas, alleged to be reproducing and distributing said
models in violation of the IP Code. Respondent moved to quash the warrants
on the ground that petitioner’s work is not artistic in nature and is a proper
subject of a patent, not copyright. Petitioner insists that the IP Code protects a
work from the moment of its creation regardless of its nature or purpose. The
trial court quashed the warrants. Petitioner argues that the copyright
certificates over the model are prima facie evidence of its validity. CA
affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not petitioner’s model is an artistic work subject to copyright
protection.
(2) Whether or not petitioner is entitled to copyright protection on the basis of
the certificates of registration issued to it.
Ruling:
(1) NO. As gleaned from the specifications appended to the application for a
copyright certificate filed by the petitioner, the said Leaf Spring Eye Bushing
for Automobile and Vehicle Bearing Cushion are merely utility models. As
gleaned from the description of the models and their objectives, these articles
are useful articles which are defined as one having an intrinsic utilitarian
function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to
convey information. Plainly, these are not literary or artistic works. They are
not intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain, or works of
applied art. They are certainly not ornamental designs or one having
decorative quality or value. Indeed, while works of applied art, original
intellectual, literary and artistic works are copyrightable, useful articles and
works of industrial design are not. A useful article may be copyrightable only
if and only to the extent that such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or
sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of
existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article. In this case, the
bushing and cushion are not works of art. They are, as the petitioner himself
admitted, utility models which may be the subject of a patent.
(2) NO. No copyright granted by law can be said to arise in favor of the
petitioner despite the issuance of the certificates of copyright registration and
the deposit of the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion.
Indeed, in Joaquin, Jr. v.Drilon and Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated v.
Shoemart, Incorporated, the Court ruled that:
Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. It is a
new or independent right granted by the statute, and not simply a pre-existing
right regulated by it. Being a statutory grant, the rights are only such as the
statute confers, and may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the
subjects and by the persons, and on terms and conditions specified in the
statute. Accordingly, it can cover only the works falling within the statutory
enumeration or description.
Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by proof of originality and
copyrightability. To discharge his burden, the applicant may present the
certificate of registration covering the work or, in its absence, other evidence.
A copyright certificate provides prima facie evidence of originality which is
one element of copyright validity. It constitutes prima facie evidence of both
validity and ownership and the validity of the facts stated in the certificate.