Facts

Pearl and Dean is a corporation in the manufacture of advertising display units also known as light
boxes, which were manufactured by Metro Industrial Services. A copyright Registration was obtained
in 1981. These were marketed in the name of "Poster Ads". They also applied for a registration of
trademark with the Bureau of Patents in 1983, but was only approved in 19988. In 1985, petitioner
had an agreement with respondent Shoemart Inc (SMI) to install these light boxes in their Makati and
Cubao branch, Only the Makati branch was able to sigh the agreement. In 1986, the contract was
rescinded unilaterally by SMI, and instead contracted with Metro Industrial Services. They installed
these lightboxes in different SM city branches, including Cubao and Makati, with association with
North Edsa Marketing Inc (NEMI), SMI's sister company. Petitioner requested SMI and NEMI to put
down their installations of the light boxes, and payment of compensatory damages worth P20M.
Claiming that respondents failed to comply, they filed a case for infringement of trademark and
copyright, unfair competition and damages. RTC ruled in favor of petitioner, but CA reversed.

Issues
a. Whether or not there was a copyright infringement
b. Whether or not there was a patent infringement
c. Whether or not there was a trademark infringement

Ruling
a. There was no copyright infringement in the case at bar.
Copyright is a statutory right, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the statute.
Therefore, it can only cover the works falling within the statutory enumeration or description. Since
the copyright was classified under class "O" works, which includes "prints, pictorial illustrations,
advertising copies, labels, tags and box wraps," and does not include the light box itself. A lightbox,
even admitted by the president of petitioner company, was neither a literary nor an artistic work but
an engineering or marketing invention, thus not included under a copyright.

b. There was no patent infringement in the case at bar.

Petitioner was not able to secure a patent for its lightboxes, thus, it cannot legally prevent
anyone from manufacturing or commercially using the same. Patent has a three-fold purpose: a) to
foster and reward invention; b) promotes disclosures of invention and permit public to use the same
upon expiration; c) stringent requirements for patent protection to ensure in the public domain remain
there for free use of the public. Since petitioner was not able to go through such examination, it
cannot exclude others from manufacturing, or selling such lightboxes.

c.There was no trademark infringement in the case at bar.

P & D was able to secure a trademark certificate but the goods specified were stationeries such
as letterheads, envelopes, calling cards and newsletters.Petitioner admitted that it did not commercially
engage in or market these goods. Furthermore, it only dealt in electrically operated backlit advertising
units and the sale of advertising spaces thereon, which, however, were not at all specified in the
trademark certificate.
In addition, 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.