COURSE OUTLINE COPYRIGHT & OTHER

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS LAW

A. PRELIMINARY EXAMS Coverage (June 11- July 16)I. Basic Intellectual Property Information What is IP? (Its concept)

Civil Law Basis Art. 712 of the Civil Code

Historical Background 1) Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals (G.R No. 114508, 19 Nov. 1999) ; 2) Taada v. Angara (GR No. 118295, May 2, 1997 ) En Banc

IP and Economics

II. Overview of the Amendments to the IP Code

III. Classes of IP ( 2 Main Divisions) IV. Trademarks 4.1 Definitions - Sec. 121, R.A 8293 Definitions of marks, collective marks, trade names )

Trade/Business Name 3) Western Equipment v. Reyes (51

Phil 115)

Functions of a Mark 4) Philip Morris, Inc. v. CA (224 SCRA

624, Dissenting op., Justice Feliciano)

4.2 Concept of Origin

Mirpuri v. CA ; Victorias Milling

Co. v. Ong Su (79 SCRA 207) Container mark 5) Asia Brewery v. CA (G.R No. 103543, 5 July

1993) ; RA 623

4.3 Acquisition of ownership of mark/Acquisition of Trade Name

Sec. 122- 6) Commercial v. General Milling (205 Phil. 707)

Sec. 165 7) Coffee Partners, Inc. vs. San Franciso Coffee & Roastery, Inc., G.R. No. 169504 , March 3, 2010

8) E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc. vs. Shen Dar Electricity and Machinery Co., Ltd. G.R. No. 184850, October 20, 2010

4.4 Registrability - Section 123 Misleading as to geographical origin 9)Sterling Products v.

Bayer Farbenfabriken AG 27 SCRA 1214

Indicative of quality of geographical origin 10) Ang v. Teodoro (74 Phil 50)

Asia Brewery v. CA (ibid, dissenting opinion)

Identical mark with respect to same goods - 10) Pagasa Industrial Corp v. CA (118

SCRA 526)

11) Mc Donalds Corp vs. LC Big Mak Burger (GR No.

243993, Aug. 18, 2004)

12) McDonalds Corporation vs. Macjoy Fastfood Corporation G.R. No. 166115, February 2, 2007

dissimilar goods 13) Acoje Mining v. Dir. of Patents

(38 SCRA 480); 14) Phil Refining Corp v. Ng Sam

15) Hickock v. CA (ibid); 16) Teodoro Kalaw Ng Khe v. Lever Brother Co. (18April 1991);

17) Mighty Corp. vs. E.J Gallo Winery [G.R. No.

154342. July 14, 2004]

closely related goods Ang v. Teodoro; 18)Puma

Sportschufabriken v. CA (G.R. No. 75067,

26 February 1998)

19) Societe Des Produits, Nestle., S.A vs. Martin Dy, Jr. G.R. No. 172276, Aug. 8, 2010 Non-identical but substantially similar mark 20)Sta. Ana v.

Maliwat (24 SCRA 1008)

Internationally well-known mark Section 123.1 (e) Art. 6bis, Paris Convention same goods - 21)La Chemise Lacoste; Mirpuri v. CA

dissimilar goods 22) Esso Standard v. CA (116 SCRA

336);23) Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (G.R No. 120900,

20 July 2000); 24) Faberge v. IAC (215 SCRA 316); 25) 246 Corporation, doing business under the

name and style of ROLEX MUSIC LOUNGE vs.

Hon. Reynaldo Daway, Montres Rolex S.A and

Rolex Center Phil., Limited (GR. No. 157216,

Nov. 20, 2003)

4.5 Prior use of mark

4.6 Tests to determine confusing similarity between marks

a) Dominancy test

b) Holistic test

25) SKECHERS,U.S.A., INC., vs. Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp. G.R. No. 164321, March 23, 2011 4.7 Rights conferred by registration 4.8 Use by third parties of names, etc. similar to registered mark

4.9 Infringement and remedies

a) Trademark infringement

b) Damagesc) Requirement of notice

26) Superior Commercial Enterprise, Inc. vs. Kunnan Enterprises LTD., and Sports Concept & Distributor, Inc. G.R. No. 169974 April 20, 2010

4.10 Unfair competition

4.11 Criminal penalties for infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and false description or misrepresentation

27) JUNO BATISTIS VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.181571, December 16, 2009

V. COPYRIGHT (July 16 August 13) MIDTERMS

5.1 Basic principles

a) Principle of Automatic Protection (Sec. 172.2)

b) Unprotectected Subject Matter (Sec. 175)

c) First Sale Doctrine ( Sec. 177.2)

d) Merger Doctrine

e) Copyright and Material Object ( Sec. 181)

28) Joaquin v. Drilon G.R No. 108946, 28 Jan 1999)

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone 499 US 340

(1991)

29) Hodge Mason v. Montgomery Data 967 F.2d 135

July 28, 1992

30) Lotus v. Borland US Court of Appeals No. 93-2214

31) *Kian Chung vs. China National Cereals Oil Foodstuff GR No. 131502, June 8, 2000

5.2 Amendments on Copyright Law

5.3 Copyrightable works

a) Original works

b) Derivative works

5.3 Non-copyrightable works

5.4 Rights of copyright owner ( economic rights and moral rights) 32) Bayanihan Music vs. BMG, Jose Mari Chan [G.R. No.

166337. March 7, 2005]

33) Triad Systems v. Southeastern Express -

34) Filscap v. Tan ( 148 SCRA 461, 16 March 1987)

5.5 Rules on ownership of copyright

5.6 Limitations on copyright

a) Doctrine of fair use

35) Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. 464 U.S 417 36) Campbell v. Acuff- Rose Music - US

37) Los Angeles News Service v. Tullo - US

38) Vault Corporation v. Quaid Software- US

b) Copyright infringement

i. Remedies

ii. Criminal penalties 39) Pearl & Dean (Phil. Inc) v. Shoemart Inc, and North Edsa Marketing Inc, GR No. 148222, Aug. 15, 2003

40)20th Century Fox v. CA (164 SCRA 655) [G.R. Nos. L-

76649-51. August 19, 1988.

41) Columbia Pictures v CA (261 SCA 144) [G.R. No. 110318, August 28, 1996.] VI PATENTS SEMI FINALS (Aug. 27-Sept. 24) Patentability Right to a Patent Application for Patent Cancellation Rights of Patentee and Remedies for Infringement Utility Model Registrability Rights of Holder Manzano v.Court of Appeals, G.R.No.113388.Sept 5, 1997

Industrial Designs (Kenneth Roy Savage v. Judge Taypin, GR No.

134217, 11 May 2000)

Registrability

Rights of Holder

Licensing

Voluntary (Secs. 85-92)

Compulsory (Sec. 93-102)

Assignment and Transmission of Rights (Sections 103-107)

VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (Oct 1.-8) IPO ( Sec. 1-19, RA 8293)

DTI (EO 913)

VI. OTHER TOPICS- Semi Finals

Trade Secrets

E Commerce Law on IP Infringement

Rule on Search and Seizure in Civil Actions for Infringement of

IPR ( Supreme Court, A.M No. 02-1-06, SC, En Banc, Jan. 22,

2002)