INTELLECTUAL CREATION: #1: PEARL & DEAN vs.

SHOEMART *petition for review on certiorari FACTS: The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of advertising display units, referred to as light boxes. The petitioner was able to secure a Certificate of Copyright Registration over these illuminated displays. These boxes were marked under the trademark Poster Ads. The application for registration of trademark was filed, but the same was only approved on September 12, 1988. Metro Industrial Services, the company formerly contracted by Pearl & Dean to fabricate the display units, offered SM to construct light boxes for its chain of stores. The 2 companies reached to an agreement. The petitioner discovered that exact copies of the said light boxes were installed in certain SM branches. So, a letter was sent to SMI enjoining them to cease using the subject light boxes and remove the same from SM establishments. It also demanded the discontinued use of Poster Ads and the payment of damages in the amount of P20M. SMI, in its answer to the action filed by the petitioner, contended that it independently developed its poster panels using commonly known techniques and available technology. It also noted that the registration of the mark Poster Ads was only for stationeries. The RTC declared Shoemart liable for infringement of trademark and copyright, and unfair competition. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC. ISSUE: Are the engineering or technical drawings of an advertising display unit granted copyright protection? Or should it be registered separately and protected by a patent? RULING: The SC denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the CA. The Court agrees with the appellate court that the copyright was limited to the drawings alone and not to the light box itself. The Copyright Certificate stated that it was for a class O work. Under Sec 2 of PD49, class O pertains to prints, pictorial illustration, advertising copies, labels, tags, and box wraps.

Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. Being a mere statutory grant, the rights are limited to what the statute confers. It may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects and by the persons, and on terms and conditions specified in the statute. Also, the petitioner acquired no patent rights which could have protected its invention. Therefore, it cannot legally prevent anyone from manufacturing or commercially using the contraption. 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 goods. In relation thereto, a trade name mean 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 invention, on the other hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involved an inventive step and is industrially applicable. As to the issue of trademark infringement, the goods specified in the trademark certificate secured by the petitioner were stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes, calling cards and newsletters. Therefore, its exclusive right to use such tradename extends only to those specified in the certificate. The Court did not also find that there was an unfair competition. There was no evidence that Pearl & Deans use of Poster Ads was distinctive or well-known. Also, the term was too generic and could not be associated with the petitioner companys name. #2: SMITH KLINE BECKMAN CORP vs. CA FACTS: ISSUE: RULING: