Columbia vs. Ca

COLUMBIA vs.
CA
FACTS: In 1986, the Videogram Regulatory Board (VRB) applied for a

warrant against Jose Jinco (Jingco), owner of Showtime Enterprises for
allegedly pirating movies produced and owned by Columbia Pictures and
other motion picture companies. Jingco filed a motion to quash the search
warrant but the same was denied in 1987. Subsequently, Jinco filed an
Urgent Motion to Lift the Search Warrant and Return the Articles Seized. In
1989, the RTC judge granted the motion. The judge ruled that based on
the ruling in the 1988 case of 20thCentury Fox Film Corporation vs CA,
before a search warrant could be issued in copyright cases, the master
copy of the films alleged to be pirated must be attached in the application
for warrant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the 20th Century Fox ruling may be applied
retroactively in this case.
HELD: No. In 1986, obviously the 1988 case of 20thCentury Fox was not
yet promulgated. The lower court could not possibly have expected more
evidence from the VRB and Columbia Pictures in their application for a
search warrant other than what the law and jurisprudence, then existing
and judicially accepted, required with respect to the finding of probable
cause.
The Supreme Court also revisited and clarified the ruling in the
20th Century Fox Case. It is evidently incorrect to suggest, as the ruling
in 20th Century Fox may appear to do, that in copyright infringement
cases, the presentation of master tapes of the copyright films is always
necessary to meet the requirement of probable cause for the issuance of
a search warrant. It is true that such master tapes are object evidence,
with the merit that in this class of evidence the ascertainment of the
controverted fact is made through demonstration involving the direct use
of the senses of the presiding magistrate. Such auxiliary procedure,
however, does not rule out the use of testimonial or documentary
evidence, depositions, admissions or other classes of evidence tending to
prove the factum probandum, especially where the production in court of
object evidence would result in delay, inconvenience or expenses out of
proportion to is evidentiary value.
In fine, the supposed pronouncement in said case regarding the necessity

for the presentation of the master tapes of the copy-righted films for the
validity of search warrants should at most be understood to merely serve
as a guidepost in determining the existence of probable cause in copyright infringement cases where there is doubt as to the true nexus
between the master tape and the pirated copies. An objective and careful
reading of the decision in said case could lead to no other conclusion than
that said directive was hardly intended to be a sweeping and inflexible
requirement in all or similar copyright infringement cases.
CHING VS SALINAS
G.R. No. 161295
June 29, 2005
FACTS:
Jessie G. Ching is the owner and general manager of Jeshicris Manufacturing
Co., the maker and manufacturer of a Utility Model, described as "Leaf Spring Eye
Bushing for Automobile" made up of plastic.
On September 4, 2001, Ching and Joseph Yu were issued by the National Library
Certificates of Copyright Registration and Deposit of the said work described therein
as "Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile."4
After due investigation, the NBI filed applications for search warrants in the
RTC of Manila against William Salinas, Sr. and the officers and members of the Board
of Directors of Wilaware Product Corporation. It was alleged that the respondents
therein reproduced and distributed the said models penalized under Sections 177.1
and 177.3 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293.
The respondents averred that the works covered by the certificates issued by
the National Library are not artistic in nature; they are considered automotive spare
parts and pertain to technology. They aver that the models are not original, and as
such are the proper subject of a patent, not copyright.
ISSUE: WON the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile is a work of art
HELD: No copyright granted by law can be said to arise in favor of the petitioner
despite the issuance of the certificates of copyright registration and the deposit of
the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion.
RATIO RECIDENDI:
We agree with the contention of the petitioner (citing Section 171.10 of R.A.
No. 8293), that the authors intellectual creation, regardless of whether it is a
creation with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article produced on an
industrial scale, is protected by copyright law. However, the law refers to a "work of
applied art which is an artistic creation." It bears stressing that there is no copyright
protection for works of applied art or industrial design which have aesthetic or artistic
features that cannot be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of the
article.36 Functional components of useful articles, no matter how artistically
designed, have generally been denied copyright protection unless they are separable
from the useful article.37
In this case, the petitioners models are not works of applied art, nor artistic
works. They are utility models, useful articles, albeit with no artistic design or value.
A utility model is a technical solution to a problem in any field of human

activity which is new and industrially applicable. It may be, or may relate to, a
product, or process, or an improvement of any of the aforesaid. Essentially, a utility
model refers to an invention in the mechanical field. This is the reason why its object
is sometimes described as a device or useful object. A utility model varies from an
invention, for which a patent for invention is, likewise, available, on at least three
aspects: first, the requisite of "inventive step" in a patent for invention is not
required; second, the maximum term of protection is only seven years compared to a
patent which is twenty years, both reckoned from the date of the application; and
third, the provisions on utility model dispense with its substantive examination and
prefer for a less complicated system.
Being plain automotive spare parts that must conform to the original
structural design of the components they seek to replace, the Leaf Spring Eye
Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion are not ornamental. They lack the decorative
quality or value that must characterize authentic works of applied art. They are not
even artistic creations with incidental utilitarian functions or works incorporated in a
useful article. In actuality, the personal properties described in the search warrants
are mechanical works, the principal function of which is utility sans any aesthetic
embellishment.
Joaquin vs Drilon
FACTS:
Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder / grantee of Certificate of
Copyright No. M922, dated January 28, 1971, of Rhoda and Me, a dating game show
aired from 1970 to 1977.
On June 28, 1973, petitioner BJPI submitted to the National Library an
addendum to its certificate of copyright specifying the shows format and style of
presentation.
Upon complaint of petitioners, information for violation of PD No. 49 was filed
against private respondent Zosa together with certain officers of RPN 9 for airing Its a
Date. It was assigned to Branch 104 of RTC Quezon City.
Zosa sought review of the resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor before the
Department of Justice.
On August 12, 1992, respondent Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon reversed

the Assistant City Prosecutors findings and directed him to move for the dismissal of the
case against private respondents.
Petitioner Joaquin filed motion for reconsideration but such was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether the format or mechanics or petitioners television show is entitled to
copyright protection.
HELD:
The Court ruled that the format of the show is not copyrightable. Sec. 2 of PD
No. 49, otherwise known as the Decree on Intellectual Property, enumerates the classes
of work entitled to copyright protection. The provision is substantially the same as Sec.
172 of the Intellectual Property Code of thePhilippines (RA 8293). The format or
mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of protected works in Sec. 2 of
PD No. 49. For this reason, the protection afforded by the law cannot be extended to
cover them.
Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. It is a new
independent right granted by the statute and not simply a pre-existing right regulated by
the statute. Being a statutory grant, the rights are only such as the statute confers, and
may be 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 BJPIs 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.
Pearl & Dean vs. Shoemart

Pearl & Dean (Phil), Inc. is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of
advertising display units called light boxes. In January 1981, Pearl & Dean
was able to acquire copyrights over the designs of the display units. In
1988, their trademark application for Poster Ads was approved; they
used the same trademark to advertise their light boxes.
In 1985, Pearl & Dean negotiated with Shoemart, Inc. (SM) so that the
former may be contracted to installlight boxes in the ad spaces of SM.
Eventually, SM rejected Pearl & Deans proposal.
Two years later, Pearl & Dean received report that light boxes, exactly the
same as theirs, were being used by SM in their ad spaces. They
demanded SM to stop using the light boxes and at the same time asked
for damages amounting to P20 M. SM refused to pay damages though
they removed the light boxes. Pearl & Dean eventually sued SM. SM
argued that it did not infringe on Pearl & Deans trademark because Pearl
& Deans trademark is only applicable to envelopes and stationeries and
not to the type of ad spaces owned by SM. SM also averred that Poster
Ads is a generic term hence it is not subject to trademark registration.
SM also averred that the actual light boxes are not copyrightable. The RTC
ruled in favor of Pearl & Dean. But the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of
SM.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct.
HELD: Yes. The light boxes cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be
considered as either prints, pictorial illustrations, advertising copies,
labels, tags or box wraps, to be properly classified as a copyrightable;
what was copyrighted were the technical drawings only, and not the light
boxes themselves. In other cases, it was held that there is no copyright
infringement when one who, without being authorized, uses a copyrighted
architectural plan to construct a structure. This is because the copyright

does not extend to the structures themselves.
On the trademark infringement allegation, the words Poster Ads are a
simple contraction of the generic term poster advertising. In the absence
of
any
convincing
proof
that
Poster
Ads
has
acquired
a secondary meaning in this jurisdiction, Pearl & Deans exclusive right to
the use of Poster Ads is limited to what is written in its certificate of
registration, namely, stationeries.

Columbia vs. Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Columbia vs. Ca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Columbia vs. Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COLUMBIA vs.

FACTS: In 1986, the Videogram Regulatory Board (VRB) applied for a

In fine, the supposed pronouncement in said case regarding the necessity

A utility model is a technical solution to a problem in any field of human

On August 12, 1992, respondent Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon reversed

Pearl & Dean vs. Shoemart

architectural plan to construct a structure. This is because the copyright

You might also like