Case Digests

CAs
of Micah Pogi (LIP, Session 1) 2014

Case Title:

Elidad Kho v. CA, G.R. No. 115758

Petitioner’s Claims:

That being the registered owner of the copyrights of Chin Chun Su and Oval Facial
Cream Container/Case, respondent Summerville has no right to sell their products
under the Chin Chun Su brand name and in similar containers which they use. She
therefore seeks injunctive relief from the court against Summerville in order to restrain it
from further violating its right as such copyright owner.

Respondent’s Claims:

That it is the exclusive and authorized importer, re-packer and distributor of Chin Chun
Su products manufactured by Shun Yi Factory of Taiwan and that the said Taiwanese
manufacturing company authorized it to register its trade name Chin Chun Su
Medicated Cream with the Philippine Patent Office and other appropriate governmental
agencies.

Issue/s:

WON injunctive relief would obtain in favor of Kho in this case.

Ruling:

NO. Kho 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. It is settled that granting injunctive
relief for a right which cannot be enforced is improper.

1|Page
Case Digests
CAs
of Micah Pogi (LIP, Session 1) 2014

Case Title:

Ching v. Salinas, G.R. No. 161295

Petitioner’s Claims:

Being the maker and manufacturer of a Utility Model, described as “Leaf Spring Eye
Bushing for Automobile” made up of plastic for which the National Library issued
Certificates of Copyright Registration and Deposit. As such, he caused the premises of
the Salinases to be searched by the NBI in order to seize the allegedly illegal
reproductions of the utility model.

Respondent’s Claims:

That the search warrant should be quashed on the ground that the Leaf Spring Eye
Bushing is not copyrightable as it is neither artistic nor literary, hence, no probable
cause (for which a warrant could issue) for violation of copyright could have been found
against them.

Issue/s:

WON the utility model subject of the case is copyrightable.

Ruling:

NO. Under the law, only literary or artistic work may be the proper subject of a
copyright. Inventions and utility models, on the other hand, may only be patented.
Indeed, while works of applied art, original intellectual, literary and artistic works are
copyrightable, useful articles and works of industrial design are not.

In this case, the petitioner’s models are not works of applied art, nor artistic works.
They are utility models, useful articles, albeit with no artistic design or value. That the
works of the petitioner may be the proper subject of a patent does not entitle him to the
issuance of a search warrant for violation of copyright laws.

2|Page
Case Digests
CAs
of Micah Pogi (LIP, Session 1) 2014

Case Title:

Joaquin v. Drilon, G.R. No. 108946

Petitioner’s Claims:

BJPI Productions assert that the format of “Rhoda and Me” (a dating show aired by
them on TV) is a product of ingenuity and skill and is thus entitled to copyright
protection. This according to them gives them a right to institute a criminal action
against RPN 9 whose show “It’s A Date” according to them evidently imitated the format
of theirs.

Respondent’s Claims:

In asserting that no probable cause exists against RPN 9, Secretary Drilon avers,
among others, that the mere idea of a dating game show is a non-copyrightable
material.

Issue/s:

WON the idea or format of a dating show may be protected by copyrights.

Ruling:

NO. The law on copyright, in enumerating what are subject to copyright, refers to
finished works and not to concepts. The 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 described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in
such work.

Here, the copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of BJPI’s dating
game show.

3|Page
Case Digests
CAs
of Micah Pogi (LIP, Session 1) 2014

Case Title:

Philippine Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers v. Benjamin Tan, G.R. No. L-
36402

Petitioner’s Claims:

The Society maintains that playing or singing a musical composition is universally

accepted as performing the musical composition and that playing and singing of
copyrighted music in Tan’s soda fountain and restaurant for the entertainment of the
customers although the latter do not pay for the music but only for the food and drink
constitute performance for profit under the Copyright Law.

Respondent’s Claims:

The composers of the contested musical compositions waived their right in favor of the
general public when they allowed their intellectual creations to become property of the
public domain before applying for the corresponding copyrights for the same.

Issue/s:

1.) WON the playing and signing of musical compositions which have been copyrighted
under the provisions of the Copyright Law (Act 3134) inside the establishment of Tan
constitute a public performance for profit within the meaning and contemplation of the
Copyright Law of the Philippines.

2.) Assuming that it is an infringement, WON Tan can be held liable therefor.

Ruling:

1.) YES. Case law teaches us that the playing of music in dine and dance establishment
which was paid for by the public in purchases of food and drink constituted
"performance for profit" within the Copyright Law.

In the case at bar, it is It obvious that the expenses entailed by having a live performing
band in Tan’s establishment are added to the overhead of the restaurant which are
either eventually charged in the price of the food and drinks or to the overall total of
additional income produced by the bigger volume of business which the entertainment
was programmed to attract. Consequently, it is beyond question that the playing and
singing of the combo in said place constituted performance for profit contemplated by
the Copyright Law.

2.) NO. Paragraph 33 of Patent Office Administrative Order No. 3 entitled 'Rules of
Practice in the Philippines Patent Office relating to the Registration of Copyright Claims',
provides among other things that an intellectual creation should be copyrighted thirty

4|Page
Case Digests
CAs
of Micah Pogi (LIP, Session 1) 2014

(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.

In this case, a careful study of the records reveals that the song "Dahil Sa Iyo" which
was registered on April 20, 1956, became popular in radios, juke boxes, etc. long before
registration while the song "The Nearness Of You" registered on January 14, 1955 had
become popular since 1943 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.
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.

5|Page