SAN BEDA LAW

Laws on Intellectual Property

Course Outline
Professor Risel Castillo-Taleon

I. Intellectual Property Rights

1. Declaration of State Policy - Sec. 2 IP Code
a. Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines vs. Ochoa, G.R. No.
204605, July 19, 2016
2. Specific Intellectual Property Rights Sec. 4 IP Code
3. Technology Transfer Arrangements in General
4. Right of a Foreigner to Sue for Protection of IP Rights Sec. 3 and 160

II. The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPhil) Sections 6 to 9 and 9A
of the IP Code (as amended by RA 10372), Sections 10 to 19, IPCode

III. TRADEMARKS
1. Definition of Marks, Collective Marks, Trade Names, Slogan Sec. 121
2. Functions of Trademarks
3. Acquisition of Ownership of Mark
a. Sec. 122
b. Birkenstock GmbH vs. Phil Shoe Marketing GR #194307, Nov. 29, 2013
c. Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Kunnan Enterprises Ltd. and Sports
Concept & Distributor, Inc., G.R. No. 169974, April 20, 2010
4. Acquisition of Ownership of Trade Name Sec. 165
a. Ecole De Cuisine Manille (Cordon Bleu of the Philippines), Inc. vs. Renaus
Cointreau & Cie and Le Cordon Bleu Intl, B.V., G.R. No. 185830, June 5, 2013)
5. Registrabiity of Marks
a. Non-Registrable Marks Sec. 123.1
b. Secondary Meaning, Sec. 123.2
6. Fanciful, Arbitrary, Suggestive, Composite and Coined Marks
7. Prior Use of Mark as a Requirement Sec. 122, 152
8. Tests to Determine Confusing Similarity between Marks
 a. Dominancy Test
1. Asia Brewery, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 103543
2. McDonalds Corporation vs. L.C. Big Mak Burgers, Inc. G.R. No. 143993
3. Societes Des Produits Nestle, S.A. et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No.
112012
4. McDONALD'S CORPORATION vs. MACJOY FASTFOOD CORPORATION (G.R.
No. 166115, February 2, 2007)
5. Sketchers USA vs. Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corporation, GR No. 164321,
March 28, 2011
6. Societes Des Produits Nestle, S.A. vs. Dy, G.R. No. 172276, August 8, 2010

b. Holistic Test
1. Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corp. vs. CA, G.R. No. 100098
2. Bristol Myers Co. vs. Dir. Of Patents & United American Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
G.R. No. L-21587, May 19, 1966
3. VICTORIO DIAZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND LEVI STRAUSS
PHILS.M, INC (G.R. NO. 180677, February 18, 2013)
4. Philip Morris, Inc. vs. Fortune Tobacco Corporation, G.R. No. 158589, June 27,
2006
5. Del Monte Corporation and Philippine Packing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-78325, January 25, 1990

9. Well-Known Marks
a. Sec. 123 (e) (f)
b. Criteria
c. IN-N-OUT BURGER, INC. vs. SEHWANI, INCORPORATED AND/OR BENITA'S
FRITES, INC. (G.R. No. 179127, December 24, 2008)
d. Fredco Manufacturing Corporation vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College,
GR No. 185917, June 1, 2011

10. Trademark Registration Process and Requirements Secs. 124-146, 149

a. Filing date
b. Priority Right
 c. Opposition
d. Certificate of Registration

11. Rights Conferred by Registration Sec. 147

a. Taiwan Kolin Corp. v. Kolin Electronics Co., G.R. No. 209843, 25 March 2015
b. Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco, Inc. vs. E. & J. Gallo
Winery and the Andresons Group, Inc., G.R. No. 154342, July 14, 2004
12. Use by Third Parties of Names, etc. Similar to Registered Mark Sec. 148
13. License Contracts Sec. 150
14. Cancellation of Registration - Section 151 - 154
15. Infringement and Remedies

a. Trademark Infringement
1. Sec. 155
2. Confusion of goods vs. confusion of business
3. Limitations to Actions for Infringement Sec. 159
4. SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT, LTD., SHANGRI-LA
PROPERTIES, INC., MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL & RESORT, INC., AND
KUOK PHILIPPINES PROPERTIES, INC. vs. DEVELOPERS GROUP OF
COMPANIES, INC., (G.R. No. 159938, March 31, 2006)
5. PROSOURCE INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs. HORPHAG RESEARCH
MANAGEMENT SA (sociG.R. No. 180073, November 25, 2009)
6. COFFEE PARTNERS, INC. vs. SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE & ROASTERY,
INC., (G.R. No. 169504, March 3, 2010)
7. Ong vs. People of the Philippines, GR No. 169440, November 23, 2011
8. Republic Gas Corporation (REGASCO), et. al. vs. Petron Corporation, et. al.,
G.R. No. 194062, June 17, 2013

b. Damages
1. Sec. 156-158, 179
2. Civil vs. Criminal Infringement
3. Action for False or Fraudulent Declaration Sec. 162

c. Jurisdiction
1. Sec. 163
 2. AM No. 2-1-11, Feb. 9, 2002
2. AM No. 03-03-03, July 1, 2003
3. Sec. 10.2

d. Requirement of Notice
e. Prohibition of Entry of Goods Bearing Infringing Marks; Role of Bureau of
Customs - Sec. 166

16. Unfair Competition

a. Sec. 168
b. Infringement vs. Unfair Competition
c. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum, et al. vs. Romars Intl. GR 189669, Feb. 16, 2015
d. Willaware Products Corp. vs. Jesicrhris Mfg. Corp. GR 195549, Sep. 3, 2014
e. MANUEL C. ESPIRITU, JR., AUDIE LLONA, FREIDA F. ESPIRITU, CARLO F.
ESPIRITU, RAFAEL F. ESPIRITU, ROLANDO M. MIRABUNA, HERMILYN A.
MIRABUNA, KIM ROLAND A. MIRABUNA, KAYE ANN A. MIRABUNA, KEN RYAN
A. MIRABUNA, JUANITO P. DE CASTRO, GERONIMA A. ALMONITE and
MANUEL C. DEE, who are the officers and directors of BICOL GAS REFILLING
PLANT CORPORATION, vs. PETRON CORPORATION and CARMEN J.
DOLOIRAS, doing business under the name "KRISTINA PATRICIA ENTERPRISES
(G.R. No. 170891, November 24, 2009
f. LEVI STRAUSS (PHILS.), INC. vs. TONY LIM (G.R. No. 162311, December 4,
2008)
g. Coca- Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI), Naga Plant vs. Quintin Gomez, et,
al., G.R. No. 154491, November 14, 2008

17. Trade Names or Business Names Sec. 165

18. Collective Marks Sec. 167
19. False Designations of Origins, False Description or Representation Sec. 169
a. CHESTER UYCO, WINMSTON UYCHIYONG and CHERRY C. UYCO-ONG vs.
VICENTE LO (G.R. NO. 202423, January 28, 2013)
20. Penalties Sec. 170
a. G.R. No. 188526. November 11, 2013, Century Chinese Medicine Co., et al. Vs.
People of the Philippines and Ling Na Lau

IV. PATENTS
1. Patentable Inventions - Sec. 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27
2. Non-Patentable Inventions Sec. 22
3. Ownership of a Patent
a. Right to a Patent Sec. 28
b. First-to-File Rule Sec. 29
c. Inventions Created Pursuant to a Commission d. Sec. 30
d. Right of Priority Sec. 31
4. Patent Registration Process and Requirements Secs. 32 to 60
5. Cancellation of a Patent Secs. 61 to 66
6. Remedy of the True and Actual Inventor Sec. 29, 67, 68, 70
7. Rights Conferred by a Patent Sec. 71 & 55
8. Limitations of Patent Rights Sec. 71 & 72
a. Prior User Sec. 73
b. Use by the Government Sec. 74
9. Patent Infringement Sec. 76 to 84
a. Civil Action for Infringement Sec. 76
b. Infringement Action by a Foreign National Sec. 77
c. Limitation of Action - Sec. 79
d. Notice Requirement Sec. 80
e. Court which has Jurisdiction
- AM No. 02-1-11, dated Feb. 19, 2002
- Samson vs. Cabanos, June 28, 2005 GR 161693
f. Criminal action for Patent Infringement Sec. 84
g. Tests in Patent Infringement
i. Literal Infringement Sec. 75.1
ii. Doctrine of Equivalents Sec. 75.2
h. Defenses in Action for Infringement Sec. 81
i. Contributory Patent Infringement Sec. 75.1

10. Technology Transfer Arrangements Secs. 85 to 102

a. Voluntary License Contract Sec. 85, 90, 91
1. Prohibited Clauses Sec. 87
2. Mandatory Provisions Sec. 88
 b. Compulsory Licensing
1. Grounds Sec. 93, 96, 97
2. Requirement to Obtain a License Sec. 95
c. Period to File a Petition Sec. 94

11. Assignment and Transmission of Rights Sec. 103-107

12. Utility Models Secs. 108 - 111
13. Industrial Design Secs. 112 118
14. CASES
1. [G.R. No. 148222. August 15, 2003.] PEARL & DEAN (PHIL.),
INCORPORATED vs. SHOEMART, INCORPORATED, and NORTH
EDSA MARKETING, INCORPORATED, (PATENTS/COPYRIGHT)

2. [G.R. No. L-45101. November 28, 1986.] ROSARIO C. MAGUAN

(formerly ROSARIO C. TAN), petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS and SUSANA LUCHAN, (novelty as requisite for
patentability)

3. G.R. No. L-32160. January 30, 1982.] DOMICIANO A. AGUAS,

petitioner, vs. CONRADO G. DE LEON and COURT OF APPEALS,
(patentability)

4. [G.R. No. 126627. August 14, 2003.] SMITH KLINE BECKMAN

CORPORATION, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and
TRYCO PHARMA CORPORATION, (PATENTS)(doctrine of equivalents
must satisfy function-means-and-result test)

5. [G.R. No. 97343. September 13, 1993.] PASCUAL GODINES, petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIAL FOURTH
DIVISION and SV-AGRO ENTERPRISES, INC., (doctrine of equivalents)

6. [G.R. No. 121267. October 23, 2001.] SMITH KLINE & FRENCH
LABORATORIES, LTD., vs. COURT OF APPEALS and DANLEX
RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC., (PATENTS; Compulsory Licensing)

7. [G.R. No. 118708. February 2, 1998.] CRESER PRECISION SYSTEMS,

INC., vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND FLORO INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
(PATENTS-who may sue for infringement)

8. G.R. No. 113388. September 5, 1997.] ANGELITA MANZANO, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, and MELECIA MADOLARIA, as Assignor to NEW
 UNITED FOUNDRY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
(PATENTABILITY)

9. G.R. No. 121867. July 24, 1997.] SMITH KLINE & FRENCH
LABORATORIES, LTD., vs. COURT OF APPEALS, BUREAU OF
PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER and
DOCTORS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., (COMPULSORY LICENSING)

10. [G.R. No. 115106. March 15, 1996.] ROBERTO L. DEL ROSARIO, , vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND JANITO CORPORATION, (UTILITY
MODEL)

11. [G.R. No. L-20354. July 28, 1969.] GERARDO SAMSON, JR., petitioner,
vs. FELIPE TARROZA and DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, (utility model)

12. Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc., G.R. No. 167715, November 17,
2010 (PATENTS; rights arising therefrom)

V. COPYRIGHT

1. Definitions Sec. 171 (Note Secs. 171.3, 171.9, 171.12 and 171.13 as amended
and introduced by RA. 10372)

2. Definition of copyright

2.1.It is the element of a persons ownership of his intellectual creation that permits
him (author, composer or artist) to exclusively print, publish and vend the
product of his creation.

a. Common law copyright That which secures to the owner exclusivity until
its public dissemination.
b. Statutory copyright That which secures protection and exclusivity in the
owner by force of law even when the work has been made accessible to
the public.

3. Territorial Application Of Copyright Laws (Ip Code)

Our copyright laws have no extra-territorial operation and the rights granted under our
laws can only be infringed by acts done within our territorial jurisdiction.

4. Copyright Is Distinct From Trademark And Patents

A. 1. Pearl & Dean Phils. Inc. vs. Shoemart, Inc. 409 SCRA 23 (2003)
 2. Kho vs. Court of Appeals 379 SCRA 410 (2002)
3. Ching vs. Salinas 462 SCRA 241 (2005)

B. Denicola Test This test inquires into which aspects of the work are dictated
by the functional constraints of the article and which aspects reflect
unconstrained perspective of the artist (Prof. Robert Denicola)

C. Can an article of Commerce serve as a trademark and at the same time enjoy
patent and copyright protection?

5. Copyright Over Literary And Works Is Vested From The Moment Of Creation

1. Sec. 172.1 First paragraph

2. Sec. 172.2

3. Unilever Phils., Inc. vs. CA 498 SCRA 334

6. Works Protected By Copyright

A. 1. Original works Sec. 172

2. Derivative works Sec. 173

B. Requirements of originality An original work is that which requires originality
in skill or labor in execution such that the works became individual either in
matter, forms, arrangement or treatment (not necessarily original thought, idea
or research)

1. Sambar vs. Levi Strauss 378 SCRA 364

7. Works Not Protected By Copyright

1. Sec. 175

2. Sec. 176

8. Rights Conferred By Copyright

1. Economic Right Sec. 177

2. Moral Rights Sec. 193 - 199

3. Rights of Performers, Producers of Sounds Recording and Broadcasting

Organizations Secs. 201, 202, 203*, 204*, 205, 206, 207, 208*, 209, 210,
211 and 212*
 4. Copyright in Work of Architecture Sec. 186

9. Transfer or Assignment of Copyright Secs. 180*, 181* and 182

10. Designation of Societies Sec. 183*
11. Limitations Of Copyright

1. Sec. 184 (184.1*), 187

2. Fair use of Copyright Work Sec. 185 (185.1*)

a. Reproduction of Computer Program Sec. 189
b. Reprographic Reproduction by Libraries - Sec. 188 (188.1*)

3. Importation for Personal Purposes Sec. 190* (deleting 190.1 and 190.2 and
renumbering and rewording 190.3)

12. Ownership Of Copyright

1. Sec. 178

2. Anonymous & Pseudonymous Works Sec. 179

13. Deposit and Notice - Sec. 191* and 192

14. Term of Moral Rights - Sec. 198*
15. Right to Proceeds in Subsequent Transfers Secs. 200 - 201
16. Duration Of Copyright

1. Sec. 213

17. Infringement

1. Infringement vs. Plagiarism

Infringement or piracy is any violation of the owners exclusive rights conferred

by law while plagiarism is confined to the incorporation in ones own work that
of another without the proper acknowledgment thereof.

2. Animus furandi or intention to pirate is not an element of copyright infringement

3. An acknowledgement of the sources of the work infringed is not a defense to

an infringement action.

4. Secs. 216*, 217*, 218*, 220A*

5. Presumption of Authorship Sec. 219

18. Prescription Of Action - Sec. 226*

19. Cases
1. SANRIO CO., LIMITED vs. EDGAR LIM doing business SD ORIGNAMURA TRADING,
[G.R. NO. 168662, February 19, 2008]

2. NBI-MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ET AL. vs. JUDY HWANG ET AL., [G.R. NO.

147043, June 21, 2005]

3. MANLY SPORTWEAR MANUFACTURING, INC. vs DADODETTE ENTERPRISES

AND/OR HERMES SPORTS CENTER [G.R. NO. 165306, September 20, 2005]

4. PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N. FERNANDO, vs. FELICIDAD C.

ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC. [G.R. No. 131522. July 19, 1999.]

5. FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, JR., and BJ PRODUCTIONS, INC., petitioners, vs.

HONORABLE FRANKLIN DRILON, GABRIEL ZOSA, WILLIAM ESPOSO, FELIPE
MEDINA, JR., and CASEY FRANCISCO, [G.R. No. 108946. January 28, 1999.]

6. FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, INC., vs.

BENJAMIN TAN [G.R. No. L-36402. March 16, 1987.]

7. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc., G.R. Nos.
175769-70, January 19, 2009

Provisions marked with asterisk* are amended / inserted by RA 10372