Professional Documents
Culture Documents
71 | G a r c i a , S .
Copyright |I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y L a w
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 petitioner’s copyright and patent registration of the name and container would not
guarantee her 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.
Opinion:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
72 | G a r c i a , S .
Copyright |I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y L a w
73 | G a r c i a , S .
Copyright |I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y L a w
obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects and by the person and on terms and
conditions specified in the statute.
The Court is of the opinion that petitioner BJPI’s copyright covers audio-visual
recordings of each episode of Rhoda and Me, as falling within the class of works mentioned in
PD 49. The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating game show.
Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game shows is
insufficient; the presentation of the master videotape in evidence was indispensable to the
determination of the existence of a probable cause.
A television show includes more than mere words can describe because it involves a
whole spectrum of visuals and effects, video and audio, such that no similarity or dissimilarity
may be found by merely describing the general copyright / format of both dating game shows.
Opinion:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
74 | G a r c i a , S .
Copyright |I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y L a w
75 | G a r c i a , S .
Copyright |I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y L a w
covered by the contract, the composition may be released in favor of the writer and excluded
from the contract. The publisher shall execute the necessary release in writing of the writer
upon the request of the writer.
Opinion:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
76 | G a r c i a , S .
Copyright |I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y L a w
Facts:
Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc. (PMSI) is a signal provider which has cable and
satellite services. It is providing its satellite services through Dream Broadcasting System.
PMSI has its “Free TV” and “Premium Channels”. The Free TV includes ABS-CBN, GMA-7,
and other local networks. The premium channels include AXN, Jack TV, etc which were paid
by subscribers before such channels can be transmitted as feeds to a subscriber’s TV set which
has been installed with a Dream satellite.
ABS-CBN is a television and broadcasting corporation. It broadcasts television
programs by wireless means to Metro Manila and nearby provinces, and by satellite to
provincial stations through Channel 2 and Channel 23.
In May 2002, ABS-CBN sued PMSI for allegedly engaging in rebroadcasting and
thereby infringing on ABS-CBN’s copyrights; that the transmission of Channels 2 and 23 to
the provinces where these two channels are not usually shown altered ABS-CBN’s
programming for the said provinces. PMSI argued that it is not infringing upon ABS-CBN’s
copyrights because it is operating under the “Must-Carry Rule” outlined in NTC (National
Telecommunications Commission) Circular No. 4-08-88.
The IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs found PMSI to have infringed petitioner’s
broadcasting rights and ordered it to permanently desist from rebroadcasting. On appeal, the
IPO Director General found for PMSI. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
Issue:
1. Whether or not PMSI is covered by the “Must-Carry Rule”.
2. Whether or not petitioner’s broadcasting rights and copyright are infringed.
Ruling:
Must-Carry Rule
Yes. The “Must-Carry Rule” under NTC Circular No. 4-08-88 falls under the
limitations on copyright. The Filipino people must be given wider access to more sources of
news, information, education, sports event and entertainment programs other than those
provided for by mass media and afforded television programs to attain a well informed, well-
versed and culturally refined citizenry and enhance their socio-economic growth. The very
intent and spirit of the NTC Circular will prevent a situation whereby station owners and a few
networks would have unfettered power to make time available only to the highest bidders, to
communicate only their own views on public issues, people, and to permit on the air only those
with whom they agreed – contrary to the state policy that the (franchise) grantee like ABS-
CBN, and other TV station owners and even the likes of PMSI, shall provide at all times sound
and balanced programming and assist in the functions of public information and education.
77 | G a r c i a , S .
Copyright |I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y L a w
PMSI was likewise granted a legislative franchise under Republic Act No. 8630,
Section 4 of which similarly states that it “shall provide adequate public service time to enable
the government, through the said broadcasting stations, to reach the population on important
public issues; provide at all times sound and balanced programming; promote public
participation such as in community programming; assist in the functions of public information
and education.
The “Must-Carry Rule” favors both broadcasting organizations and the public. It
prevents cable television companies from excluding broadcasting organization especially in
those places not reached by signal. Also, the rule prevents cable television companies from
depriving viewers in far-flung areas the enjoyment of programs available to city viewers.
Broadcasting rights and copyright
No. PMSI is not engaged in rebroadcasting and thus cannot be considered to have
infringed ABS-CBN’s broadcasting rights and copyright.
Section 202.7 of the IP Code defines broadcasting as “the transmission by wireless
means for the public reception of sounds or of images or of representations thereof; such
transmission by satellite is also ‘broadcasting’ where the means for decrypting are provided to
the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent.” On the other hand,
rebroadcasting as defined in Article 3(g) of the 1961 Rome Convention, of which the Republic
of the Philippines is a signatory, is “the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting
organization of the broadcast of another broadcasting organization.” The Working Paper
prepared by the Secretariat of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights defines
broadcasting organizations as “entities that take the financial and editorial responsibility for
the selection and arrangement of, and investment in, the transmitted content.” Evidently, PMSI
would not qualify as a broadcasting organization because it does not have the aforementioned
responsibilities imposed upon broadcasting organizations, such as ABS-CBN.
PMSI does not produce, select, or determine the programs to be shown in Channels 2
and 23. Likewise, it does not pass itself off as the origin or author of such programs. Insofar as
Channels 2 and 23 are concerned, PMSI merely retransmits the same. Clearly, PMSI does not
perform the functions of a broadcasting organization; thus, it cannot be said that it is engaged
in rebroadcasting Channels 2 and 23.
Opinion:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
78 | G a r c i a , S .
Copyright |I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y L a w
79 | G a r c i a , S .
Copyright |I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y L a w
Ruling:
Yes. A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if
not identical with the text of CET. 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. The
similarities in examples and material contents are so obviously present in this case. How can
similar/identical examples not be considered as a mark of copying? Robles’ act of lifting from
the book of Habana et al substantial portions of discussions and examples, and her failure to
acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of Habana et al’s copyrights.
The Supreme Court also elucidated that in determining the question of infringement,
the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted work is an important consideration. To
constitute infringement, it is not necessary that the whole or even a large portion of the work
shall have been copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished,
or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated by
another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute piracy.
In cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is prohibited. The copying must
produce an “injurious effect.” Here, the injury consists in that respondent Robles lifted from
petitioners’ book materials that were the result of the latter’s research work and compilation
and misrepresented them as her own. She circulated the book DEP for commercial use and did
not acknowledge petitioners as her source.
Ruling that substantial portions of the book were copied, the Court held that the
infringed book should have properly cited its sources. Hence, work that is copied without a
proper attribution to its source constitutes an injury to the original author, amounting to an
infringement of the co-authors’ copyright
Opinion:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
80 | G a r c i a , S .
Copyright |I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y L a w
81 | G a r c i a , S .
Copyright |I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y L a w
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
82 | G a r c i a , S .
Copyright |I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y L a w
83 | G a r c i a , S .
Copyright |I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y L a w
Opinion:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
84 | G a r c i a , S .