9/11/2017 Simple Law Student: 2000-2014 Bar Questions on Law on Intellectual Property

HigitPa SusunodnaBlog BumuongBlog Magsignin

SimpleLawStudent
Thursday,January26,2017 Labels

barquestions(2)
20002014BarQuestionsonLawonIntellectual
Property commerciallaw(2)

corpo(1)
2000BarExamNoLIPquestions
2001BarExamNoLIPquestions corpocode(1)

2002BarExamNoLIPquestions corporationlaw(1)
2003BarExamNoLIPquestions digests(27)

electionlaw(1)
2004BarExam
laborlaw(1)

lawonintellectualproperty(1)
INTELLECTUALCREATION(2004)
Dr.ALXisascientisthonoredforworkrelatedtothehumangenomeproject.Amonghispioneering politicallaw(1)
effortsconcernstemcellresearchforthecureofAlzheimersdisease.Undercorporatesponsorship,
hehelpeddevelopamicrobethatateanddigestedoilspillsinthesea.Nowheleadsacollegeteam sales(2)
for cancer research in MSS State. The team has experimented on a mouse whose body cells
replicateandbearcanceroustumor.Calledoncomouse,itisalifeformusefulformedicalresearch
statcon(23)
anditisanovelcreation.Itsbodycellsdonotnaturallyoccurinnaturebutaretheproductofmans
statutoryconstruction(23)
intellect, industry and ingenuity. However, there is a doubt whether local property laws and ethics
wouldallowrightsofexclusiveownershiponanylifeform.Dr.ALXneedsyouradvice:

a. Whether the reciprocity principle in private international law could be applied in our jurisdiction BlogArchive
and
2017(4)
SUGGESTEDANSWER: January(4)
The reciprocity principle in private international law may be applied in our jurisdiction. Section 3 of
20072013BarQuestions
R.A.8293,theIntellectualPropertyCode,providesforreciprocity,asfollows:"Anypersonwhoisa
onCorporationLaws
national,orwhoisdomiciled,orhasarealandeffectiveindustrialestablishmentinacountrywhichis
apartytoanyconvention,treatyoragreementrelatingtointellectualpropertyrightsortherepression 20002014BarQuestions
ofunfaircompetition,towhichthePhilippinesisalsoaparty,orextendsreciprocalrightstonationals onLawonIntellectual
of the Philippines by law, shall be entitled to benefits to the extent necessary to give effect to any Pro...
provisionofsuchconvention,treatyorreciprocallaw,inadditiontotherightstowhichanyownerof Pfizerv.Velasco
an intellectual property right is otherwise entitled by this Act. (n)" To illustrate: the Philippines may
refrainfromimposingarequirementoflocalincorporationorestablishmentofalocaldomicileforthe
Sps.Romualdezv.
COMELEC
protectionofindustrialpropertyrightsofforeignnationals(citizensofCanada,Switzerland,U.S.)ifthe
countriesofsaidforeignnationalsrefrainfromimposingsaidrequirementonFilipinocitizens.
2013(25)
ALTERNATIVEANSWER:
Reciprocity principle cannot be applied in our jurisdiction because the Philippines is a party to the
TRIPSagreementandtheWTO.Theprincipleinvolvedisthemostfavorednationclausewhichisthe
principle of nondiscrimination. The protection afforded to intellectual property protection in the
Philippines also applies to other members of the WTO. Thus, it is not really reciprocity principle in
private international law that applies, but the mostfavored nation clause under public international
law.

b. Whethertherearelegalandethicalreasonsthatcouldfrustratehisclaimofexclusiveownership
overthelifeformcalledoncomouseinManila?Whatwillbeyouradvicetohim?(5%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
Thereisnolegalreasonwhy"oncomouse"cannotbeprotectedunderthelaw.Amongthoseexcluded
frompatentprotectionare"plantvarietiesoranimalbreeds,oressentiallybiologicalprocessforthe
production of plants and animals" (Section 22.4 Intellectual Property Code, R.A. No. 8293). The
"oncomouse"intheproblemisnotanessentiallybiologicalprocessfortheproductionofanimals.Itis
arealinventionbecauseitsbodycellsdonotnaturallyoccurinnaturebutaretheproductofman's
ingenuity,intellectandindustry.Thebreedingofoncomousehasnovelty,inventivestepandindustrial
application. These are the three requisites of patentability. (Sec. 29, IPC) There are no ethical

http://simplelawstudent.blogspot.com/2017/01/2000-2014-bar-questions-on-law-on.html 1/10
9/11/2017 Simple Law Student: 2000-2014 Bar Questions on Law on Intellectual Property
reasonswhyDr.ADXandhiscollegeteamcannotbegivenexclusiveownershipovertheirinvention.
Theuseofsuchgeneticallymodifiedmouse,usefulforcancerresearch,outweighsconsiderationsfor
animalrights.TherearenolegalandethicalreasonsthatwouldfrustrateDr.ALX'sclaimofexclusive
ownership over "oncomouse". Animals are property capable of being appropriated and owned'. In
fact,onecanownpetdogsorcats,oranyotheranimal.Ifwildanimalsarecapableofbeingowned,
with more reason animals technologically enhanced or corrupted by man's invention or industry are
susceptibletoexclusiveownershipbytheinventor.

ALTERNATIVEANSWER:
Theoncomouseisahigherlifeformwhichdoesnotfallwithinthedefinitionoftheterm"invention".
Neither may it fall within the ambit of the term "manufacture" which usually implies a nonliving
mechanistic product. The oncomouse is better regarded as a "discovery" which is the common
patrimonyofman.

ALTERNATIVEANSWER:
The"oncomouse"isanonpatentableinvention.Hence,cannotbeownedexclusivelybyitsinventor.
It is a method for the treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic
methodspracticedonsaidbodiesarenotpatentableunderSec.22oftheIPC.

COPYRIGHTCOMMISSIONEDARTIST(2004)
BR and CT are noted artists whose paintings are highly prized by collectors. Dr. DL commissioned
themtopaintamuralatthemainlobbyofhisnewhospitalforchildren.Bothagreedtocollaborateon
theprojectforatotalfeeoftwomillionpesostobeequallydividedbetweenthem.Itwasalsoagreed
thatDr.DLhadtoprovideallthematerialsforthepaintingandpayforthewagesoftechniciansand
laborersneededfortheworkontheproject.

AssumethattheprojectiscompletedandbothBRandCTarefullypaidtheamountofP2Masartists'
feebyDL.Underthelawonintellectualproperty,whowillownthemural?Whowillownthecopyright
inthemural?Why?Explain.(5%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
UnderSection178.4oftheIntellectualPropertyCode,incaseofcommissionedwork,thecreator(in
theabsenceofawrittenstipulationtothecontrary)ownsthecopyright,buttheworkitselfbelongsto
thepersonwhocommissioneditscreation.Accordingly,themuralbelongstoDL.However,BRand
CTownthecopyright,sincethereisnostipulationtothecontrary.

2005BarExam

PATENTS(2005)
CesarworksinacarmanufacturingcompanyownedbyJoab.Cesarisquiteinnovativeandlovesto
tinkerwiththings.Withthematerialsandpartsofthecar,hewasabletoinventagassavingdevice
that will enable cars to consume less gas. Francis, a coworker saw how Cesar created the device
and likewise came up with a similar gadget, also using scrap materials and spare parts of the
company.Thereafter,FrancisanapplicationforregistrationofhisdevicewiththeBureauofPatents.
18 months later, Cesar filed his application for the registration of the device with the Bureau of
Patents

a.Isthegassavingdevicepatentable?
b.Assumingthatitispatentable,whoisentitledtothepatent?Whatifanyistheremedyofthelosing
party
c.SupposingJoabgotwindoftheinventionsofhisemployeesandalsolaidaclaimtothepatents.
Assertingthatcesarandfranciswhereusingmaterialsandcompanytimeinmakingthedeviceswill
hisclaimprevailoverthoseofhisemployees?

SUGGESTEDANSWERS:
a.Itispatentablebecauseitisnew.Itinvolvesaninventivestepanditsindustryapplicable(Sec21
IPC)

b.Francisisentitledtopatent,becausehehasearlierfilingdate(sec29IPC).TheremedyofCesaris
tofileapetitionincourtforthecancellationofthepatentofFrancisonthegroundthatheisthetrue
andactualinventorandaskforsubstitutionaspatentee(sec6768IPC)

c.TheclaimofJoabwillnotprevailoverthoseofhisemployees,eveniftheyusedhismaterialsand
companytimeinmakingthegassavingdevice.Theinventionofthegassavingdeviceisnotpartof
theirregulardutiesasemployees(sec30.2(a)IPC)

http://simplelawstudent.blogspot.com/2017/01/2000-2014-bar-questions-on-law-on.html 2/10
9/11/2017 Simple Law Student: 2000-2014 Bar Questions on Law on Intellectual Property

2006BarExam

PATENTS(2006)
Supposing Albert Einstein were alive today and he filed with the Intellectual Property Office an
applicationforpatentofhistheoryofrelativityexpressedintheformulaE=mc2.TheIPOdisapproved
Einsteinapplicationonthegroundthathistheoryifrelativityisnotpatentable

IstheIPOactioncorrect?

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
Yes,theIPO'sactioniscorrectthatthetheoryofrelativityisnotpatentable.Undersection22.1ofthe
IPC.m"discoveries,scientifictheoriesandmathematicalmethods"arenotpatentable.

COPYRIGHT(2006)
Inawrittenlegalopinionforaclientonthedifferencebetweenapprenticeshipandlearnership,Liza
quoted without permission a Labor Law expert's comment appearing in his book "Annotations On
LaborCode"
Can the Labor Law expert hold Liza liable for infringement of copyright for quoting a portion of his
bookwithouthispermission?

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
No,theLaborLawexpertcannotholdLizaliableforinfringementofcopyright.UnderSec184.1(k)of
the IPC. "Any use made of a work for the purpose of any judicial proceedings or for the giving of
professionaladvicebyalegalpractitioner"shallnotconstituteinfringementofcopyright.

2007BarExam

COPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT(2007)
DianaandPioloarefamouspersonalitiesinshowbusinesswhokepttheirloveaffairsecret.Theyuse
a special instant messaging service which allows them to see one anothers typing on their own
screenaseachletterkeyispressed.WhenGreg,thecontrolleroftheservicefacility,foundouttheir
identities,hekeptacopyofallthemessagesDianaandPiolosenteachotherandpublishedthem.Is
Gregliableforcopyrightinfringement?Reasonbriefly.(5%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
Yes,Gregisliableforcopyrightinfringement.Letterareamongtheworkswhichareprotectedfrom
themomentoftheircreation(Section172,intellectualPropertyCodeColumbiaPictures,Inc.vCourt
ofAppeals,261SCRA144[1996]).

Thepublicationoftheletterswithouttheconsentoftheirwritersconstitutesinfringementofcopyright.

ALTERNATIVEANSWER:
No, Greg is not liable for copyright infringement. There is no copyright protecting electronic
documents.Whatareinvolvedherearetextmessages,notletterintheirordinarysense.Hence,the
protection under the copyright law does not extend to text messages (Section172, Intellectual
PropertyCode).ThemessagesthatDianaandPioloexchangedthroughtheuseofmessagingservice
donotconstituteliteraryandartisticworksunderSection172oftheIntellectualPropertyCode.They
arenotletterunderSection172(d).

Forcopyrighttosubsistinamessage,itmustqualifyasawork(Section172,IntellectualProperty
Code).Whetherthemessagesareentitledornottocopyrightprotectionwouldhavetoberesolvedin
thelightoftheprovisionoftheIntellectualPropertyCode.

Note:Sincethelawonthismatterisnotclear,itissuggestedthateitheroftheaboveoftheabove
suggestedanswersshouldbegivenfullcredit.

2008BarExam

COPYRIGHTCOMMISSIONEDARTIST(2008)
In1999,Mochawarn,anAmericanmusician,hadabitrapsinglecalledWarmWarmHoneywhichhe
himselfcomposedandperformed.ThesinglewasproducedbyaCaliforniarecordcompany,Galactic
Records.ManynoticethatsomepassagesfromWarmWarmHoneysoundedeerilysimilartopartsof
http://simplelawstudent.blogspot.com/2017/01/2000-2014-bar-questions-on-law-on.html 3/10
9/11/2017 Simple Law Student: 2000-2014 Bar Questions on Law on Intellectual Property
UnderHassle,a1978hitsongbytheBritishrockandMajesty.Acopyrightinfringementsuitwasfiled
intheUnitedStatesagainstMochaWarmbyMajesty.Itwaslatersettledoutofcourt,withMajesty
receivingattributionascoauthorofWarmWarmHoneyaswellasashareintheroyalties.By2002,
Mocha Warm was nearing bankruptcy and he sold his economic rights over Warm Warm Honey to
Galactic Records for $10,000. In 2008, Planet Films, a Filipino movie producing company,
commissionedDJChefJean,aFilipinomusician,toproduceanoriginalremixofWarmWarmHoney
foruseinoneofitslatestfilms,Astig!.DJChefJeanremixedWarmWarmHoneywithasalsabeat,
andinterspersedaswellarecitalofpoeticstanzabyJohnBlake,centuryScottishpoet.DJChefJean
diedshortlyaftersubmittingtheremixedWarmWarmHoneytoPlanetFilms.Priortothereleaseof
Astig!. Mocha Warm learns of the remixed Warm Warm Honey and demands that he be publicly
identified as the author of the remixed song is all the CD covers and publicity releases of Planet
Films.

a. Who are the parties or entities entitled to be credited as author of the remixed Warm Warm
Honey?Reasonoutyouranswers.(3%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
ThepartiesentitledtobecreditedasauthorsoftheremixedWarmWarmHoneyareMochaWarm,
Majesty, DJ Chef Jean and John Blake, for the segments that was the product of the irrespective
intellectualefforts.nthecaseofMochaWarmandMajesty,whoaretheattributedcoauthors,andin
spite of the sale of the economic right to Galactic Records, they retain their moral rights to the
copyrighted rap, which include the right to demand attribution to them of the authorship (Sec.
193,IPC).WhichrespecttoDJChefJean,inspiteofhisdeath,andalthoughhewascommissionedby
Planet Films for the remix, the rule is that the person who so commissioned work shall have
ownership of the work, but copyright thereto shall remain with creator, unless there is a written
stipulationtothecontrary.EvenifnocopyrightexistinfavorofpoetJohnBlake,intellectualintegrity
requiresthattheauthorsofcreativeworkshouldproperlybecredited.

b. WhoaretheparticularpartiesorentitieswhoexercisecopyrightovertheremixedWarmWarm
Honey?Explain.(3%)
SUGGESTEDANSWER:
ThepartieswhoexercisecopyrightoreconomicrightsovertheremixedWarmWarmHoneywouldbe
GalacticRecordsandPlanetFilms.InthecaseofGalacticRecords,itboughttheeconomicrightsof
MochaWarm.InthecaseofPlanetFilms,itcommissionedtheremixedwork.

COPYRIGHTCOMMISSIONEDWORK(2008)
Eloise,anaccomplishedwriter,washiredbyPetongtowriteabimonthlynewspapercolumnforDiario
deManila,anewlyestablishednewspaperofwhichPetongwastheeditorinchief.Eloisewastobe
paidP1,000foreachcolumnthatwaspublished.Inthecourseoftwomonths,Eloisesubmittedthree
columnswhich,aftersomeslightediting,wereprintedinthenewspaper.However,DiariodeManila
provedunprofitableandclosedonlyaftertwomonths.Duetotheminimalamountsinvolved,Eloise
chose not to pursue any claim for payment from the newspaper, which was owned by New Media
Enterprises.Threeyearslater,Eloisewasplanningtopublishananthologyofherworks,andwanted
toincludethethreecolumnsthatappearedintheDiariodeManilainheranthology.Sheasksforyou
legaladvice:

a. DoesEloisehavetosecureauthorizationfromNewMediaEnterprisestobeabletopublishher
DiariodeManilacolumnsinherownanthology?Explainfully.(4%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
Eloise may publish the columns without securing authorization from New Media Enterprises. Under
Sec. 172 of the Intellectual Property Code, original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic
domain are protected from the moment of their creation and shall include those in periodicals and
newspapers. Under Sec. 178, copyright ownership shall belong to the author. In case of
commissioned work, the person who so commissioned work shall have ownership of work, but
copyrightshallremainwithcreator,unlessthereisawrittenstipulationtothecontrary.

b. Assume that New Media Enterprises plans to publish Eloises columns in its own anthology
entitled,TheBestofDiariodeManilaEloisewantstopreventthepublicationofhercolumnsin
thatanthologysinceshewasneverpaidbythenewspaper.Nameoneirrefutablelegalargument
Eloise could cite to enjoin New Media Enterprises from including her columns in its anthology.
(2%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
UndertheIPC,thecopyrightoreconomicrightstothecolumnssheauthoredpertainsonlytoEloise.
Shecaninvoketherighttoeitherauthorizeorpreventreproductionofthework,includingthepublic
distributionoftheoriginalandeachcopyoftheworkbysaleorotherformsoftransferofownership,
Sincethiswouldbetheeffectofincludinghercolumnintheanthology.

http://simplelawstudent.blogspot.com/2017/01/2000-2014-bar-questions-on-law-on.html 4/10
9/11/2017 Simple Law Student: 2000-2014 Bar Questions on Law on Intellectual Property

2009BarExam

DENICOLATEST(2009)
True or False: The Denicola Test in Intellectual Property :aw states that if design elements of an
article reflect a merger of aesthetic and functional considerations, the artistic aspects of the work
cannotbeconceptuallyseparablefromtheutilitarianaspectsthus,thearticlecannotbecopyrighted.

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
True.ApplyingtheDenicolaTestinBrandirInternational,Inc.v.CascadePacificLumberCo.(834F.
2d1142,1988Copr.L.Dec.P26),theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSecondCircuitheldthatif
there is any aesthetic element which can be separated from the utilitarian elements, then the
aestheticelementmaybecopyrighted.(Note:Itissuggestedthatthecandidatebegivenfullcreditfor
whateveranswerorlackofit.Further,itissuggestedthattermsoranymatteroriginatingfromforeign
lawsorjurisprudenceshouldnotbeasked.)

INFRINGEMENTTRADEMARK,COPYRIGHT(2009)
After disposing of his last opponent in only two rounds in Las Vegas, the renowned Filipino boxer
Sonny Bachao arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport met by thousands of hero
worshippingfansandhundredsofmediaphotographers.Thefollowingday,acoloredphotographof
Sonnywearingablackpoloshirtembroideredwiththe2inchLacosteCrocodilelogoappearedonthe
front page of every Philippine newspaper. Lacoste International, the French firm that manufactures
lacosteapparelandownstheLacostetrademark,decidedtocashinontheuniversalpopularityofthe
boxingicon.Itreprintedthephotographs,withthepermissionofthenewspaperpublishers,andwent
onaworldwideblitzofprintcommercialsinwhichSonnyisshownwearingaLacosteshirtalongside
the phrase Sonny Bachao just loves Lacoste. When Sonny sees the Lacoste advertisements, he
hiresyouaslawyerandasksyoutosueLacosteInternationalbeforeaPhilippinecourt:

b. For trademark Infringement in the Philippines because Lacoste International used his image
withouthispermission:(2%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
Sonny Bachao cannot sue for infringement of trademark. The photographs showing him wearing a
Lacoste shirt were not registered as a trademark (Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Inc. v.Shoemart, Inc., 409
SCRA231(2003)).

c.Forcopyrightinfringementbecauseoftheunauthorizeduseofthepublishedphotographs(2%)
SUGGESTEDANSWER:
SonnyBachaocannotsueforinfringementofcopyrightfortheunauthorizeduseofthephotographs
showing him wearing a Lacoste shirt. The copyright to the photographs belong to the newspapers
whichpublishedtheminasmuchasthephotographsweretheresultoftheperformanceoftheregular
duties of the photographers (Subsection173.3 (b), Intellectual Property Code(IPC)).Moreover, the
newspaper publishers authorized the reproduction of the photographs (Section 177,Intellectual
PropertyCode).

d. For injunction in order to stop Lacoste International from featuring him in their commssercials.
(2%)Willtheseactionsprosper?Explain.

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
ThecomplaintforinjunctiontostopLacosteInternationalfromfeaturinghiminitsadvertisementswill
prosper.Thisisaviolationofsubsection123,4(c)oftheIPCandArt.169inrelationtoArt.170ofthe
IPC.

e. Can Lacoste International validly invoke the defense that it is not a Philippine company and,
therefore,Philippinecourtshavenojurisdiction?Explain.(2%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
No.Philippinecourtshavejurisdictionoverit,ifitisdoingbusinessinthePhilippines.Moreover,under
Section133 of the Corporation Code, while a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines
withoutlicensetodobusiness,cannotsueorinterveneinanyaction,itmaybesuedorproceeded
againstbeforeourcourtsoradministrativetribunal(DeJoyav.Marquez,481SCRA376(2006)).

2010BarExam

AGREEMENTS: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AGREEMENTS REQUISITES & PROHIBITIONS

(2010)

http://simplelawstudent.blogspot.com/2017/01/2000-2014-bar-questions-on-law-on.html 5/10
9/11/2017 Simple Law Student: 2000-2014 Bar Questions on Law on Intellectual Property
a.Whatcontractualstipulationsarerequiredinalltechnologytransferagreements?(2%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
Thefollowingstipulationsarerequiredinalltechnologytransferagreements:
1.ThelawsofthePhilippinesshallgovernitsinterpretationandintheeventoflitigation,thevenueshall
bethepropercourtintheplacewherethelicenseehasitsprincipaloffice
2. Continued access to improvements in techniques and processes related to the technology shall be
madeavailableduringtheperiodofthetechnologytransferarrangement
3. In case it shall provide for arbitration, the Procedure of Arbitration of the Arbitration Law of the
PhilippinesortheArbitrationRulesoftheUnitedNationsCommissiononInternationalTradeLawor
theRulesofArbitrationoftheInternationalChamberofCommerce(ICC)shallapplyandthevenueof
arbitrationshallbethePhilippinesoranyneutralcountry
4. ThePhilippinetaxesonallpaymentsrelatingtothetechnologytransferagreementshallbeborneby
thelicensor(Sec.88,IntellectualPropertyCode).

b.Enumeratethreestipulationsthatareprohibitedintechnologytransferagreements.(3%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
Thefollowingstipulationsareprohibitedintechnologytransferagreements:
1.Thosethatcontainrestrictionsregardingthevolumeandstructureofproduction
2.Thosethatprohibittheuseofcompetitivetechnologiesinanonexclusiveagreementand
3.Thosethatestablishafullorpartialpurchaseoptioninfavorofthelicensor

ARTICLEOFCOMMERCEASTRADEMARK,PATENT&COPYRIGHT(2010)
Cananarticleofcommerceserveasatrademarkandatthesametimeenjoypatentandcopyright
protection?Explainandgiveanexample.(2%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
A stamped or marked container of goods can be registered as trademark(subsections 113.1 of the
IntellectualPropertyCode).Anoriginalornamentaldesignormodelforarticlesofmanufacturercan
becopyrighted(Subsection172.1oftheIntellectualPropertyCode).Anornamentaldesigncannotbe
patented, because aesthetic creations cannot be patented (Section 22of the Intellectual Property
Code).However, it can be registered as an industrial design (Subsections 113.1 and172.1 of the
Intellectual Code). Thus, a container of goods which has an original ornamental design can be
registeredastrademark,canbecopyrighted,andcanberegisteredasanindustrialdesign.

ALTERNATIVEANSWER:
It is entirely possible for an article of commerce to bear a registered trademark, be protected by a
patent and have most, or some part of it copyrighted. A book is a good example. The name of the
publisherorthecolophonusedinthebookmayberegisteredtrademarks,theinkusedinproducing
the book may be covered by a patent, and the text and design of the book may be covered by
copyrighted.

INFRINGEMENTCLAIMS(2010)
WhilevacationinginBoracay,ValentinosurreptitiouslytookphotographsofhisgirlfriendMonalizain
her skimpy bikini. Two weeks later, her photographs appeared in the Internet and in a national
celebrity magazine. Monaliza found out that Valentino had sold the photographs to the magazine,
addinginsulttoinjury,uploadedthemtohispersonalblogontheInternet.

a. MonalizafiledacomplaintagainstValentinodamagesbasedon,amongothergrounds,violation
ofherintellectualpropertyrights.Doesshehaveanycauseofaction?Explain.(2%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
MonalizacannotsueValentinoforviolationofherintellectualpropertyrights,becauseshewasnotthe
one who took the pictures (Subsection 178.1 of the Intellectual Property Code). She may sue
Valentinoinsteadforviolationofherrighttoprivacy.Hesurreptitiouslytookphotographsofherand
then sold the photographs to a magazine and uploaded them to his personal blog in the Internet
(Tolentino,CommentariesandJurisprudenceontheCivilCodeofthePhilippines,Vol.I,1987ed.,p.
169).

b. Valentinos friend Francesco stole the photographs and duplicated them and sold them to a
magazine publication. Valentino sued Francisco for infringement and damages. Does Valentino
haveanycauseofaction?Explain.(2%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:

http://simplelawstudent.blogspot.com/2017/01/2000-2014-bar-questions-on-law-on.html 6/10
9/11/2017 Simple Law Student: 2000-2014 Bar Questions on Law on Intellectual Property
ValentinocannotsueFrancescoforinfringement,becausehehasalreadysoldthephotographstoa
magazine(Angelesvs.PremierProductions,Inc.,6CAR(2s)159).

ALTERNATIVEANSWER:
Yes,astheauthorofthephotographs,Valentinohasexclusiveeconomicrightsthereto,whichinclude
the rights to reproduce, to distribute, to perform, to display, and to prepare derivative works based
uponthecopyrightedwork.Hesoldonlythephotographstothemagazinehowever,hestillretained
some economic rights thereto. Thus, he has a cause of action against infringement against
Francesco.

c.DoesMonalizahaveanycauseofactionagainstFrancesco?Explain.(2%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
MonalizacanalsosueFrancescoforviolationofherrighttoprivacy.

PATENT:NONPATENTABLEMETHODOFDIAGNOSIS&TREATMENT(2010)
Dr.NobeldiscoveredanewmethodoftreatingAlzheimersinvolvingaspecialmethodofdiagnosing
thedisease,treatingitwithanewmedicinethathasbeendiscoveredafterlongexperimentationand
fieldtesting,andnovelmentalisometricexercises.Hecomestoyouforadviceonhowhecanhave
hisdiscoveriesprotected.Canhelegallyprotecthisnewmethodofdiagnosis,thenewmedicine,and
thenewmethodoftreatment?Ifno,why?Ifyes,how?(4%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
Dr.NobelcanbeprotectedbyapatentforthenewmedicineasitfallswithinthescopeofSec.21of
the Intellectual Property Code (Rep. Act No. 8293, as amended). But no protection can be legally
extended to him for the method of diagnosis and method of treatment which are expressly non
patentable(Sec.22,IntellectualPropertyCode).

TRADEMARKUNFAIRCOMPETITION(2010)
Foryears,Yhasbeenengagedintheparallelimportationoffamousbrands,includingshoescarrying
theforeignbrandMAGIC.ExclusivedistributorXdemandsthatYceaseimportationbecauseofhis
appointmentasexclusivedistributorofMAGICshoesinthePhilippines.Ycountersthatthetrademark
MAGICisnotregisteredwiththeIntellectualPropertyOfficeasatrademarkandthereforenoonehas
therighttopreventitsparallelimportation.

a.Whoiscorrect?Why?(2%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
X is correct. His rights under his exclusive distributorship agreement are property rights entitled to
protection.TheimportationandsalebyYofMAGICshoesconstituteunfaircompetition(Yuv.Courtof
Appeals,217SCRA328(1993)).Registrationofthetrademarkisnotnecessaryincaseofanaction
forunfaircompetition(DelMonteCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,181SCRA410(1990)).

ALTERNATIVEANSWER:
Yiscorrect.Therightsinatrademarkareacquiredthroughregistrationmadevalidlyinaccordance
withtheIntellectualPropertyCode(Section122oftheIntellectualPropertyCode).

b. Suppose the shoes are covered by a Philippine patent issued to the owner, what would your
answerbe?Explain.(2%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
Apatentforaproductconfersuponitsownertheexclusiverightofimportingtheproduct(Subsection
71.1 of the Intellectual Property Code). The importation of a patented product without the
authorizationoftheownerofthepatentconstitutesinfringementofthepatent(Subsection76.1ofthe
Intellectual Property Code). X can prevent the parallel importation of such shoes by Y without its
authorization.

2011BarExamNoLIPquestions
2012BarExamNoLIPquestions

2013BarExam

http://simplelawstudent.blogspot.com/2017/01/2000-2014-bar-questions-on-law-on.html 7/10
9/11/2017 Simple Law Student: 2000-2014 Bar Questions on Law on Intellectual Property

COPYRIGHT(2013)
Rubyisafineartsstudentinauniversity.HestaysinaboardinghousewithBernieashisroommate.
Duringhisfreetime,Rudywouldpaintandleavehisfinishedworkslyingaroundtheboardinghouse.
Oneday,RudysawoneofhisworksanabstractpaintingentitledManilaTrafficJamondisplayat
the university cafeteria. The cafeteria operator said he purchased the painting from Bernie who
representedhimselfasitspainterandownerRudyandthecafeteriaoperatorimmediatelyconfronted
Bernie. While admitting that he did not do the painting,. Bernie claimed ownership of its copyright
sincehehadalreadyregistereditinhisnamewiththeNationalLibraryasprovidedintheIntellectual
PropertyCode.Whoownsthecopyrighttothepainting?Explain(8%).

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
Rudy owns the copyright to the painting because he was the one who actually created it. (Section
178.1 of then Intellectual Property Code) His rights existed from the moment of its creation(Section
172oftheIntellectualPropertyCodeUnileverPhilippines(PRC)v.CourtofAppeals,498SCRA334,
2006). The registration of the painting by Bernie with the National Library did not confer copyright
uponhim.TheregistrationismerelyforthepurposeofcompletingtherecordsoftheNationalLibrary.
(Section191oftheIntellectualPropertyCode).

2014BarExam

TRADEMARKS(2014)
JinggywenttoKluwerUniversity(KU)inGermanyforhisdoctoratedegree(Ph.D.).Hecompletedhis
degree with the highest honors in the shortest time. When he came back, he decided to setup his
owngraduateschoolinhishometowninZamboanga.Afterseekingfreelegaladvicefromhishigh
flyinglawyerfriends,helearnedthatthePhilippinesfollowstheterritorialityprincipleintrademarklaw,
i.e., trademark rights are acquired through valid registration in accordance with the law. Forth with,
Jinggy named his school the Kluwer Graduate School of Business of Mindanao and immediately
securedregistrationwiththeBureauofTrademarks.KUdidnotliketheunauthorizeduseofitsname
byitstopalumnusnoless.KUsoughtyourhelp.WhatadvicecanyougiveKU?(4%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
IcanadviseKUtofileapetitiontocanceltheregistrationofthenameKluwerGraduateSchoolof
BusinessofMindanaoKGSBMwiththeBureauofTrademarks.

The petition could be anchored on the following facts: Kluwer University is the owner of the name
Kluwer.Jinggyregisteredthetrademarkinbadfaith.Hecametoknowofthetrademarkbecausehe
wenttoKluwerUniversityinGermanyforhisdoctoratedegree.KUistheownerofthenameKluwer
andhasthesolerighttoregisterthesame.Foreignmarksthatarenotregisteredarestillaccorded
protection against infringement and/or unfair competition under the Paris Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property. Both the Philippines and Germany are signatories to the Paris
Convention. Under the said Convention, the trademark of a national or signatory to the Paris
ConventionisentitledtoitsprotectioninothercountriesthatarealsosignatoriestotheConvention
withoutneedofregisteringthetrademark.
Thepetitioncouldalsobebasedonthefact,ifitwereprovenbyKU,thatKluwer:isawellknown
markandentitledtoprotectionasKUandKGSBMbelongtothesameclassofservicesi.e.Class41
(educationandentertainment).KUmustalsoprovethatacompetentauthorityofthePhilippineshas
designatedKluwertobewellknowninternationallyandinthePhilippines.
Finally,thepetitioncouldalsobebasedonthefact,ifitwereprovenbyKU,thatKluwerisatrade
name that KU has adopted and used before its use and registration by Jinggy (Ecole de Cuisine
Manille [Cordon Bleu of the Philippines], Inc. v. Renaud Cointreau & Cie and Le Cordon Bleu Intl.,
B.V.,G.R.No.185830,June5,2013).

FRAUDULENTINTENT(2014)
In intellectual property cases, fraudulent intent is not an element of the cause of action except in
casesinvolving:
A.Trademarkinfringement
B.Copyrightinfringement
C.Patentinfringement
D.Unfaircompetition

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
D.Unfaircompetition

http://simplelawstudent.blogspot.com/2017/01/2000-2014-bar-questions-on-law-on.html 8/10
9/11/2017 Simple Law Student: 2000-2014 Bar Questions on Law on Intellectual Property
TRADEMARKSHOLISTICORDOMINANCYTEST(2014)
Skechers Corporation sued InterOacific for trademark infringement, claiming that InterPacific used
SkechersregisteredSlogomarkonInterPacificsshoeproductswithoutitsconsent.Skechershas
registeredthetrademarkSKECHERSandthetrademarkS(withanovaldesign)withtheIPO.

Initscomplaint,Skecherspointsoutthefollowingsimilarities:thecolorschemeoftheblue,white,and
grayutilizedbySkechers.Eventhedesignandwavelikepatternofthemidsoleandoutersoleof
InterPacificsshoesareverysimilartoSkechersshoes,ifnotexactpatternsthereof.Onthesideof
InterPacificsshoes,neartheupperpart,appearsthestylizedSplacedintheexactlocationasthat
ofthestylizedStheSkechersshoes.Ontopofthetongueofbothshoes,appearsthestylizedS
inpracticallythesamelocationandsize.
Initsdefense,InterPacificclaimsthatundertheHolisticTest,thefollowingdissimilaritiesarepresent:
themarkSfoundinStrongshoesisnotenclosedinanovaldesignthewordStrongforInter
Pacific and Skechers USA for Skechers and, Strong shoes are modestly priced compared to the
costsofSkechersshoes.

Under the foregoing circumstances, which is the proper test to be applied Holistic or Dominancy
Test?Decide.

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
Consideringthefactsgivenandtheargumentsoftheparties,thedominancytestisthepropertestto
apply.Thus,theappropriationanduseoftheletterSbyInterPacificonitsrubbershoesconstituted
aninfringementofthetrademarkofSkechers.

The essential element of infringement under the IPC is that the infringing mark is likely to cause
confusion. In determining similarity and likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed tests
theDominancyandtheHolisticTests.TheDominancyTestfocusesonthesimilarityofthecompeting
trademakrsthatmightcauseconfusion,mistake,anddeceptioninthemindofthepurchasingpublic.
Duplicationorimitationisnotnecessaryneitherisitrequiredthatthemarksoughttoberegistered
suggestanefforttoimitate.Givenmoreconsiderationaretheauralandvisualimpressionscreatedby
themarksonthebuyersofgoods,givinglittleweighttofactorslikeprices,quality,salesoutlets,and
marketsegments.

In contrast, the Holistic or Totality Test necessitates a consideration of the entirety of the marks as
applied to the products, including the labels and packaging, in determining confusing similarity. The
discerningeyeoftheobservermustfocusnotonlyonthepredominantwords,butalsoontheother
features appearing on both labels so that the observer may draw conclusion on whether one is
confusinglysimilartotheother.
ApplyingtheDominancyTesttotheproblem,wefindthattheuseofthestylizedSbyInterPacificin
itsStrongrubbershoesinfringesonthemarkalreadyregisteredbySkecherswiththeIPO.Whileitis
undisputed that stylized S of Skechers is within an oval design, the dominant feature of the
trademarkisthestylizedS,asitispreciselythestylizedSwhichcatchestheeyeofthepurchaser.
Thus,evenifInterPacificdidnotusetheovaldesign,themerefactthatitusedthesamestylizedS,
thesamebeingthedominantfeatureofthetrademarkofSkechers,alreadyconstitutesinfringement
undertheDominancyTest(SkechersUSAIncv.InterPacificIndustrialTradingCorp.,etal.,G.R.No.
164321,Nov.30,2006).

COPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT(2014)
KK is from Bangkok, Thailand. She studies medicine in the Pontifical University of Santo Tomas
(UST).ShelearnedthatthesameforeignbooksprescribedinUSTare4050%cheaperinBangkok.
So she ordered 50 copies of each book for herself and her classmates and sold the books at 20%
less than the price in the Philippines. XX, the exclusive licensed publisher of the books in the
Philippines,suedKKforcopyrightinfringement.Decide.(4%)

SUGGESTEDANSWER:
KK is liable for infringement of copyright. XX, as exclusive licensed publisher, is entitled, within the
scopeofthelicense,toalltherightsandremediesthatthelicensorhaswithrespecttothecopyright
(Sec.180,IPC).

TheimportationbyKKof50copiesofeachforeignbookprescribedinUSTandsellingthemlocallyat
20lessthantheirrespectivepricesinthePhilippinesissubjecttothedoctrineoffairusesetoutin
Sec.185.1oftheIPC.Thefactorstobeconsideredindeterminingwhethertheusemadeofaworkis
fairuseshallinclude:
a. Thepurposeandcharacteroftheuse,includingwhethersuchuseisofacommercialnatureorisfor
nonprofiteducationalpurposes
b.Thenatureofthecopyrightedwork
c.Theamountandsubstantialityoftheportionusedinrelationtothecopyrightedworkasawhole
d.Theeffectoftheuseuponthepotentialmarketfororvalueofthecopyrightedwork.

http://simplelawstudent.blogspot.com/2017/01/2000-2014-bar-questions-on-law-on.html 9/10
9/11/2017 Simple Law Student: 2000-2014 Bar Questions on Law on Intellectual Property

Applying the abovelisted factors to the problem, KKs importation of the books and their sale local
clearly show the unfairness of her use of the books, particularly the adverse effect of her price
discountingonthebusinessofXX.

Labels:barquestions,commerciallaw,lawonintellectualproperty

Nocomments:

PostaComment

Enter your comment...

Commentas: Unknown (Google) Signout

Publish Preview Notifyme

NewerPost Home OlderPost

Subscribeto:PostComments(Atom)

AwesomeInc.theme.PoweredbyBlogger.

http://simplelawstudent.blogspot.com/2017/01/2000-2014-bar-questions-on-law-on.html 10/10