FILSCAP vs TAN Nevertheless, appellee cannot be said to have infringed upon

the Copyright Law. composers of the contested musical

Facts: Plaintiff-appellant is a non-profit association of compositions waived their right in favor of the general public
authors, composers and publishers duly organized under the when they allowed their intellectual creations to become
Corporation Law of the Philippines and registered with the property of the public domain before applying for the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Said association is the corresponding copyrights for the same.
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.

appellant filed a complaint with the lower court for

infringement of copyright

While not denying the playing of said copyrighted

compositions in his establishment, appellee maintains that
the mere singing and playing of songs and popular tunes even
if they are copyrighted do not constitute an infringement

Issue: whether or not the playing and signing of musical

compositions which have been copyrighted under the
provisions of the Copyright Law (Act 3134) inside the
establishment of the defendant-appellee constitute a public
performance for profit within the meaning and
contemplation of the Copyright Law of the Philippines

Ruling: the patrons of the restaurant in question pay only

for the food and drinks and apparently not for listening to the
music.

the music provided is for the purpose of entertaining and

amusing the customers in order to make the establishment
more attractive and desirable

for the playing and singing the musical compositions involved,

the combo was paid as independent contractors by the
appellant

It is therefore obvious that the expenses entailed thereby are

added to the overhead of the restaurant

he playing and singing of the combo in defendant-appellee's

restaurant constituted performance for profit contemplated
by the Copyright Law.
Habana vs Roble
Facts: Petitioners are authors and copyright owners of
COLLEGE ENGLISH FOR TODAY (CET for brevity), Books 1 and
2, and WORKBOOK FOR COLLEGE FRESHMAN ENGLISH, Series
1.
We believe that respondent Robles act of lifting from the
book of petitioners substantial portions of discussions and
examples, and her failure to acknowledge the same in her
book is an infringement of petitioners copyrights.
Issue: when is there a substantial reproduction of a book?

Respondent Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc.
are the author/publisher and distributor/seller of another
published work entitled DEVELOPING ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
(DEP for brevity), Books 1 and 2 (1985 edition) which book
was covered by copyrights issued to them.
In the course of revising their published works, petitioners
scouted and looked around various bookstores to check on
other textbooks dealing with the same subject matter. By
chance they came upon the book of respondent Robles and
upon perusal of said book they were surprised to see that the
book was strikingly similar to the contents, scheme of
presentation, illustrations and illustrative examples in their
own book, CET.
Petitioners found that several pages of the respondents book
are similar, if not all together a copy of petitioners book,
which is a case of plagiarism and copyright infringement.
Respondent stressed that (1) the book DEP is the product of
her independent researches, studies and experiences, and
was not a copy of any existing valid copyrighted book; (2) DEP
followed the scope and sequence or syllabus which are
common to all English grammar writers as recommended by
the Association of Philippine Colleges of Arts and Sciences
(APCAS), so any similarity between the respondents book and
that of the petitioners was due to the orientation of the
authors to both works and standards and syllabus; and (3) the
similarities may be due to the authors exercise of the right to
fair use of copyrigthed materials, as guides.
Ruling: It does not necessarily require that the entire
copyrighted work, or even a large portion of it, be copied. If
so much is taken that the value of the original work is
substantially diminished, there is an infringement of
copyright and to an injurious extent, the work is
appropriated.[
Issue: Is respondent correct in claiming that the copied
portions of the book CET are also found in foreign books and
other grammar books, and that the similarity between her
style and that of petitioners can not be avoided since they
come from the same background and orientation may be
true.
Ruling: No. in this jurisdiction under Sec 184 of Republic Act
8293 it is provided that:
Limitations on Copyright. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Chapter V, the following shall not constitute infringement of
copyright:
xxxxxxxxxxxx
(c) The making of quotations from a published work if they
are compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified
for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper
articles and periodicals in the form of press
summaries: Provided, That the source and the name of the
author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned.

Lower court dismmissed case. CA affirmed.

Issue: Did the respondent violate copyright law

Ruling: Yes. On page 100 of the book DEP, also in the topic
of parallel structure and repetition, the same example is
found in toto. The only difference is that petitioners
acknowledged the author Edmund Burke, and respondents
did not.

In several other pages the treatment and manner of

presentation of the topics of DEP are similar if not a rehash of
that contained in CET.
Kho vs CA
Facts: Petitioner owns KEC Cosmetics Laboratory, is the
registered owner of the copyrights Chin Chun Su and Oval
Facial Cream Container/Case. She also has patent rights on
Chin Chun Su & Device and Chin Chun Su for medicated
cream after purchasing the same from Quintin Cheng, the
registered owner.
Petitioner claims that respondent Summerville
advertised and sold petitioners 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 petitioners business sales and income;
and, that the respondents should be enjoined from allegedly
infringing on the copyrights and patents of the petitioner.
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.
any field of human activity which is new, involves an
inventive step and is industrially applicable.
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 petitioners 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.
The dispositive portion of lower court decision held
that the petitioner does not have trademark rights on the
name and container of the beauty cream product.

Issue: Whether the copyright and patent over the name

and container of a beauty cream product would entitle the
registrant to the use and ownership over the same to the
exclusion of others.

Ruling: No.

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. In relation thereto, a trade name means
the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an
enterprise.

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. Patentable inventions, on the
other hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in
Joaquin vs Drilon
Facts: Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the
holder/grantee of copyright of Rhoda and Me, a dating game
show aired from 1970 to 1977.
petitioner BJPI submitted to the National Library an
addendum to its certificate of copyright specifying the shows
format and style of presentation.
On July 14, 1991, while watching television, petitioner
Francisco Joaquin, Jr., president of BJPI, saw on RPN Channel
9 an episode of Its a Date, which was produced by IXL
Productions, Inc. (IXL). On July 18, 1991, he wrote a letter to
private respondent Gabriel M. Zosa, president and general
manager of IXL, informing Zosa that BJPI had a copyright
to Rhoda and Me and demanding that IXL discontinue
airing Its a Date.
Issue: Is the sho Rhoda and Me covered by copyright law?
Ruling: No. The format of a show is not copyrightable.
Section 2 of P.D. No. 49, otherwise known as the DECREE ON
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, enumerates the classes of work
entitled to copyright protection.
The format or mechanics of a television show is not included
in the list of protected works in 2 of P.D. No. 49. For this
reason, the protection afforded by the law cannot be
extended to cover them.
P.D. No. 49, 2, 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.
BJPIs copyright covers audio-visual recordings of each
episode of Rhoda and Me, as falling within the class of works
mentioned in P.D. 49, 2(M) and does not extend to the
general concept or format of its dating game show.
xxxxxxxxxx
Section 2. The rights granted by this Decree shall, from the
moment of creation, subsist with respect to any of the
following classes of works:
(A) Books, including composite and cyclopedic works,
manuscripts, directories, and gazetteers;
(B) Periodicals, including pamphlets and newspapers;
(C) Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for
oral delivery;
(D) Letters;
(E) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions;
choreographic works and entertainments in dumb shows, the
acting form of which is fixed in writing or otherwise;
(F) Musical compositions, with or without words;
(G) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture,
engraving, lithography, and other works of art; models or
designs for works of art;
(H) Reproductions of a work of art;
(I) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of
manufacture, whether or not patentable, and other works of
applied art;
(J) Maps, plans, sketches, and charts;
(K) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical
character;
(L) Photographic works and works produced by a process
analogous to photography; lantern slides;
(M) Cinematographic works and works produced by a process
analogous to cinematography or any process for making
audio-visual recordings;
(N) Computer programs;
(O) Prints, pictorial illustrations advertising copies, labels,
tags, and box wraps;
(P) Dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgements,
arrangements and other alterations of literary, musical or
artistic works or of works of the Philippine government as
herein defined, which shall be protected as provided in
Section 8 of this Decree.
(Q) Collections of literary, scholarly, or artistic works or of
works referred to in Section 9 of this Decree which by reason
of the selection and arrangement of their contents constitute
intellectual creations, the same to be protected as such in
accordance with Section 8 of this Decree.
(R) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.
Pearl and Dean vs Shoemart

Facts: Plaintiff-appellant Pearl and Dean (Phil.), Inc. is a

corporation engaged in the manufacture of advertising
display units simply referred to as light boxes. These units
utilize specially printed posters sandwiched between plastic
sheets and illuminated with back lights. Pearl and Dean was
able to secure a Certificate of Copyright Registration. The
advertising light boxes were marketed under the trademark
Poster Ads.

Pearl and Dean employed the services of Metro Industrial

Services to manufacture its advertising displays.

Pearl and Dean negotiated with defendant-appellant

Shoemart, Inc. (SMI) for the lease and installation of the light
boxes. The agreement did not come into fruition.

Two years later, Metro Industrial Services, the company

formerly contracted by Pearl and Dean to fabricate its display
units, offered to construct light boxes for Shoemarts chain of
stores. After its contract with Metro Industrial was
terminated, SMI engaged the services of EYD Rainbow
Advertising Corporation to make the light boxes.

Sometime in 1989, Pearl and Dean, received reports that

exact copies of its light boxes were installed at SM City and in
the fastfood section of SM Cubao. Upon investigation, Pearl
and Dean found out that aside from the two (2) reported SM
branches, light boxes similar to those it manufactures were
also installed in two (2) other SM stores.

SMI maintained that it independently developed its poster

panels using commonly known techniques and available
technology, without notice of or reference to Pearl and Deans
copyright. SMI noted that the registration of the mark Poster
Ads was only for stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes,
and the like. Besides, according to SMI, the word Poster Ads is
a generic term which cannot be appropriated as a trademark,
and, as such, registration of such mark is invalid. It also
stressed that Pearl and Dean is not entitled to the reliefs
prayed for in its complaint since its advertising display units
contained no copyright notice, in violation of Section 27 of
P.D. 49.

RTC decided in favor of P&D. CA overturned.

Issue: Are these light boxes covered by copyright, patent, or

trademark law?

Ruling: