The document discusses trademarks and intellectual property rights. It defines trademarks and outlines the elements of trademark infringement. It also discusses copyright protection for artistic works like Disney characters and the exclusive rights this provides, including public display of such works.
The document discusses trademarks and intellectual property rights. It defines trademarks and outlines the elements of trademark infringement. It also discusses copyright protection for artistic works like Disney characters and the exclusive rights this provides, including public display of such works.
The document discusses trademarks and intellectual property rights. It defines trademarks and outlines the elements of trademark infringement. It also discusses copyright protection for artistic works like Disney characters and the exclusive rights this provides, including public display of such works.
The document discusses trademarks and intellectual property rights. It defines trademarks and outlines the elements of trademark infringement. It also discusses copyright protection for artistic works like Disney characters and the exclusive rights this provides, including public display of such works.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 4
At a glance
Powered by AI
The key takeaways are that trademarks help identify goods and services of manufacturers and merchants, and deserve legal protection from infringement.
The elements of trademark infringement are: 1) The trademark is registered, 2) The trademark is reproduced/imitated, 3) The infringing mark is used for goods/services, 4) Use of the infringing mark is likely to cause confusion, and 5) Use is without consent of the trademark owner.
The Supreme Court says the protection of trademarks extends to cases where purchasers would think the trademark owner is connected to the activities of the infringer or has expanded their business.
A 'trademark is any distinctive word, name, symbol, emblem, sign, or
device, or any combination thereof adopted and used by a manufacturer or
merchant on his goods to identify and distinguish them from those manufactured, sold, or dealt in by others. Inarguably, a trademark deserves protection. For, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter observed in Mishawaka Mfg. Co. v. Kresge Co.: The protection of trademarks is the law's recognition of the psychological function of symbols. If it is true that we live by symbols, it is no less true that we purchase goods by them. A trade-mark is a merchandising short-cut which induces a purchaser to select what he wants, or what he has been led to believe what he wants. The owner of a mark exploits this human propensity by making every effort to impregnate the atmosphere of the market with the drawing power of a congenial symbol. Whatever the means employed, the aim is the same - to convey through the mark, in the minds of potential customers, the desirability of the commodity upon which it appears. Once this is attained, the trade-mark owner has something of value. If another poaches upon the commercial magnetism of the symbol he has created, the owner can obtain legal redress.1 In Diaz vs. People2, the Supreme Court enumerated the elements of the offense of trademark infringement under the Intellectual Property Code: 1. The trademark being infringed is registered in the Intellectual Property Office; 2. The trademark is reproduced, counterfeited, copied, or colorably imitated by the infringer; 3. The infringing mark is used in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services; or the infringing mark is applied to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods, business or services; 4. The use or application of the infringing mark is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the goods or services themselves or as to the source or 1Philip Morris vs. Fortune (G.R. No. 158589, 27 June 2006). 2 G .R. No. 180677, 18 February 2013. origin of such goods or services or the identity of such business; and 5. The use or application of the infringing mark is without the consent of the trademark owner or the assignee thereof. In UFC vs. Barrio Fiesta3, the Supreme Court ruled that the protection to which the owner of a trademark is entitled extends to cases in which in protective purchasers would be misled into thinking that the complaining party is in any way connected with the activities of the infringer, to wit: “Modern law recognizes that the protection to which the owner of a trademark is entitled is not limited to guarding his goods or business from actual market competition with identical or similar products of the parties, but extends to all cases in which the use by a junior appropriator of a trade-mark or trade-name is likely to lead to a confusion of source, as where prospective purchasers would be misled into thinking that the complaining party has extended his business into the field (see 148 ALR 56 et seq; 53 Am Jur. 576) or is in any way connected with the activities of the infringer; or when it forestalls the normal potential expansion of his business.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Illustrations of Disney princesses are considered intellectual creations in the
artistic domain, protected from the moment of their creation. Section 172 of RA 8293 provides:
“Section 172. Literary and Artistic Works. - 172.1. Literary and
artistic works, hereinafter referred to as "works", are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation and shall include in particular: (a) Books, pamphlets, articles and other writings; (b) Periodicals and newspapers; (c) Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery, whether or not reduced in writing or other material form; (d) Letters;
3 January 20, 2016, G.R. No. 198889.
(e) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; choreographic works or entertainment in dumb shows; (f) Musical compositions, with or without words; (g) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography or other works of art; models or designs for works of art; (h) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not registrable as an industrial design, and other works of applied art; (i) Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science; (j) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character; (k) Photographic works including works produced by a process analogous to photography; lantern slides; (l) Audiovisual works and cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings; (m) Pictorial illustrations and advertisements; (n) Computer programs; and (o) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.” The exclusive right to publicly display artwork depicting Disney characters belongs to the owner of the copyright. Section 177 of RA 8293 states: SECTION 177. Copyright or Economic Rights. — Subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII, copyright or economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the following acts: 177.1. Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work; 177.2. Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment, arrangement or other transformation of the work; 177.3. The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by sale or other forms of transfer of ownership; 177.4. Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or cinematographic work, a work embodied in a sound recording, a computer program, a compilation of data and other materials or a musical work in graphic form, irrespective of the ownership of the original or the copy which is the subject of the rental; (n) 177.5. Public display of the original or a copy of the work; 177.6. Public performance of the work; and 177.7. Other communication to the public of the work.
Violation of Oath - Amy Ladine - REQUEST PROOF OF INSURANCE - The Judicial Council of California Is Responsible For Defense Indemnification (See California Rule of Court, Rule 10.201) .