Notes on Intellectual Property

Intellectual property rights refer to those property rights which result from physical manifestation
of original thought. Thus, there are no property rights protected by law in mere ideas or mental
conceptions. It is only when creations of mind are put in tangible form that it becomes an
appropriate subject for protection. (63A AmJur 3d. Property, Sec. 5)
Intellectual property rights include:
1. Copyright
2. Related rights or neighboring rights of copyright
3. Patents
4. Industrial Designs
5. Mark
6. Protection of Undisclosed information
7. Layout designs of integrated circuits
8. Geographic indications (RA 8293, Sec. 4)

Copyright Trademark Patent

As to how it is defined
It is the system of legal It relates to visible sign It may pertain to either the
protection an author enjoys in capable of distinguishing the grant of rights over an
the form of expression of goods of an enterprise invention, to sell, use and
ideas. (World Intellectual (Trademark) or the services make the same whether for
Property Organization) It may of an enterprise (Service commerce or industry or the
also be referred to as the Mark) and includes a stamped instrument (sometimes called
intangible, incorporeal right or marked container of goods letters patent) containing the
granted by statute to the (RA 8293, Sec. 121.1) grant, giving an inventor a
author or originator of certain monopoly on the inventor’s
literary or artistic invention for a limited period.
productions, whereby he is
invested, for a limited period,
with the sole exclusive
privilege of multiplying
copies of the same and
publishing and selling them
(Black Law Dictionary)
As to purpose
a) To stimulate artistic a) To indicate origin or a) Not only to reward the
creativity for the ownership of articles individual, but the
general public good to which they are advancement of the
b) To promote the attached arts and sciences
progress of science b) To guarantee that b) To add to the sum of
and useful arts those articles come up useful knowledge; and
to a certain kind of c) To encourage
 quality dissemination of
c) To advertise articles information
they symbolize concerning
d) To assure the public discoveries and
that they are inventions
producing genuine
article; and
e) To protect the
manufacturer against
substitution and sale
of an inferior and
different article
As to how created or acquired
Acquired from the Acquired through Acquired by
moment of creation valid registration registration through a
“First-to-File” system
As to term of protection
a) Single creation: The term of protection
lifetime of the creator for Patents: 20 years
and for 50 years after from the filing date of
his death the application (RA
b) Joint creation: lifetime 8293, Sec. 54)
of the last surviving
co-creator and for 50
years after his death
c) Anonymous or
pseudonyms work: 50
years after the date of
their first publication;
except where, before
the expiration of said
period, the author’s
identity is revealed or
is no longer in doubt,
the 1st two mentioned
rules shall apply; or if
unpublished, 50 years
from their making
d) Work of applied art,
an artistic creation
with utilitarian
functions or
incorporated in a
useful article, whether
made by hand or
produced on an
 industrial scale:25
years from the date of
making
e) Photographic work,
audiovisual work
produced by or
analogous processes:
50 years from the
publication of the
work, or if
unpublished, from
making the same
f) Newspaper article:
Lifetime of the author
and 50 years
thereafter

Patents

Patentable Inventions
1) Any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity, which is 2)
2) new,
3) involves an inventive step, and
4) is industrially applicable. It may be or may relate to, a product, process, or an
improvement of any of the foregoing. (RA 8293, Sec 21).
The right to patent belongs to the inventor, his heirs, or assigns. When two or more
persons have made the invention separately, the right to a patent shall belong to them jointly.
(RA 8293, Sec 28)

What are non-patentable inventions? (Assignment, See Sec. 8)

First-to-File rule:
If two or more persons have made the invention separately and independently of each
other, the right to the patent shall belong to the person who filed an application for such
invention, or where two or more applications are filed for the same invention, to the applicant
who has the earliest filing date or the earliest priority date. (RA 8293, Sec 29)
The person who commissions the work shall own the patent, UNLESS otherwise provided in the
contract (RA 8293, Sec 30.1) In case the employee made the invention in the course of his
employment contract, the patent shall belong to :.
1. The employee, if the inventive activity is not a part of his regular duties even if he uses
the time, facilities and materials of the employer
2. The employer, if the invention is the result of the performance of his regularly-assigned
duties, unless there is an agreement, express or implied, to the contrary (Sec 30.2)

Assignment/Application:
Muhammad Nur works in a car manufacturing company by Marlon. Muhammad Nur is quite
innovative and loves to tinker with things. With the materials and parts of the car, he was able to
invent a gas-saving devise that will enable cars to consume less gas. Rolando, a co-worker, saw
how Muhammad Nur created the devise and likewise, came up with a similar gadget, also using
scrap materials and spare parts of the company. Thereafter, Rolando file an application for
registration of his devise with the Bureau of Patents. Eighteen months later, Muhammad Nur
filed his application for the registration of his device with the Bureau of Patents.
a) Is the gas-saving devise patentable?

b) Assuming that it is patentable, who is entitled to the patent? What, if any, is the remedy
of the losing party?

c) Supposing Marlon got wind of the inventions of his employees and also laid claim to the
patents, asserting that Muhammad Nur and Rolando were using his materials and
company time in making the devices, will his claim prevail over those of his employees?

Patent Infringement
The 1)making, 2)using, 3) offering for sale, 4)selling, or 5) importing a patented product
or a product obtained directly or indirectly from a patented process, or the use of a patented
process without the authorization of the patentee. (Sec. 76.1)

Tests in Patent Infringement

1. Literal Infringement
2. Doctrine of Equivalents

(Godines vs. CA) The patent involved is Letters Patent No. UM-2236 issued by
the Philippine Patent Office to one Magdalena S. Villaruz on July 15, 1976. It covers
a utility model for a hand tractor or power tiller. The above mentioned patent was
acquired by SV-Agro Industries Enterprises, Inc. by virtue of a Deed of Assignment.
Later, SV-Agro Industries caused the publication of the patent in Bulletin Today, a
newspaper of general circulation.

In accordance with the patent, private respondent manufactured and sold the
patented power tillers with the patent imprinted on them. In 1979, SV-Agro Industries
suffered a decline of more than 50% in sales in its Molave, Zamboanga del Sur
branch. Upon investigation, it discovered that power tillers similar to those patented
by SV-Agro were being manufactured and sold by Godines. Consequently, SV-Agro
notified Godines about the existing patent and demanded that the latter stop selling
and manufacturing similar power tillers. Upon Godines’ failure to comply with the
demand, SV-Agro Industries filed before the Regional Trial Court a complaint for
infringement of patent and unfair competition. After trial, the court held Godines
liable for infringement of patent and unfair competition. The decision was affirmed
by the appellate court. Thereafter, this petition was filed. Godines maintains the
defenses which he raised before the trial and appellate courts, to wit: that he was not
engaged in the manufacture and sale of the power tillers as he made them only upon
the special order of his customers who gave their own specifications; hence, he could
not be liable for infringement of patent and unfair competition; and that those made
by him were different from those being manufactured and sold by SV Agro.

Issue: Did petitioner's product infringe upon the patent of private respondent?

Held: Tests have been established to determine infringement. These are (a) literal
infringement; and (b) the doctrine of equivalents. In using literal infringement as a
test, ". . . resort must be had, in the first instance, to the words of the claim. If accused
matter clearly falls within the claim, infringement is made out and that is the end of
it." To determine whether the particular item falls within the literal meaning of the
patent claims, the court must juxtapose the claims of the patent and the accused
product within the overall context of the claims and specifications, to determine
whether there is exact identity of all material elements.

Recognizing that the logical fallback position of one in the place of defendant is
to aver that his product is different from the patented one, courts have adopted the
doctrine of equivalents which recognizes that minor modifications in a patented
invention are sufficient to put the item beyond the scope of literal
infringement.  Thus, according to this doctrine, "(a)n infringement also occurs when a
device appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its innovative concept and,
albeit with some modification and change, performs
substantially the
same function in substantially the same way to achieve
substantially the same result."  The reason for the doctrine of
equivalents is that to permit the imitation of a patented invention which does not copy
any literal detail would be to convert the protection of the patent grant into a hollow
 and useless thing. Such imitation would leave room for — indeed encourage — the
unscrupulous copyist to make unimportant and insubstantial changes and
substitutions in the patent which, though adding nothing, would be enough to take the
copied matter outside the claim, and hence outside the reach of the law. (GR 97343,
Sept 13, 1993)

A careful examination between the two power tillers will show that they will
operate on the same fundamental principles. And, according to establish
jurisprudence, in infringement of patent, similarities or differences are to be
determined, not by the names of things, but in the light of what elements do, and
substantial, rather than technical, identity in the test. More specifically, it is necessary
and sufficient to constitute equivalency that the same function can be performed in
substantially the same way or manner, or by the same or substantially the same,
principle or mode of operation; but where these tests are satisfied, mere differences of
form or name are immaterial. . . . The law will protect a patentee against imitation of
his patent by other forms and proportions. If two devices do the same work in
substantially the same way, and accomplish substantially the same result, they are the
same, even though they differ in name, form, or shape. 

Assignments:
Grounds for Cancellation of a Patent (See Sec 61.1)
Exclusive Rights of A Patent Owner (See Sec 71)
Limitations of Patent Rights (See Sec 72)

Trademarks

Assignment: Enumerate the non-registrable marks (See Sec. 123.1))

Is actual use a requirement for trademark?
Yes, the applicant or the registrant shall file a declaration of actual use of the mark with
evidence to that effect, as prescribed by the Regulations within 3 years from the filing date of the
application. Otherwise, the application shall be refused or the mark shall be removed from the
Register by the Director.
Tests to determine confusing similarity between marks
1. Dominancy Test
2. Holistic Test
(ABI vs. SMC) On September 15, 1988, San Miguel Corporation (SMC) filed a complaint
against Asia Brewery Inc. (ABI) for infringement of trademark and unfair competition on
account of the latter's BEER PALE PILSEN or BEER NA BEER product which has been
competing with SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN for a share of the local beer market. (San
Miguel Corporation vs. Asia Brewery Inc., Civ. Case. No. 56390, RTC Branch 166, Pasig, Metro
Manila.).
RTC: ABI "has not committed trademark infringement or unfair competition against" SMC.
CA: ABI GUILTY of infringement of trademark and unfair competition.
Issue: Whether ABI infringes SMC's trademark: San Miguel Pale Pilsen with Rectangular
Hops and Malt Design, and thereby commits unfair competition against the latter.
Held: Infringement is determined by the "test of dominancy" rather than by differences or
variations in the details of one trademark and of another. The rule was formulated in Co Tiong
Sa vs. Director of Patents, 95 Phil. 1, 4 (1954); reiterated in Lim Hoa vs. Director of Patents, 100
Phil. 214, 216-217 (1956), thus:
It has been consistently held that the question of infringement of a trademark is to be
determined by the test of dominancy. Similarity in size, form and color, while relevant, is
not conclusive. If the competing trademark contains the main or essential or dominant
features of another, and confusion and deception is likely to result, infringement takes
place. Duplication or imitation is not necessary; nor it is necessary that the infringing
label should suggest an effort to imitate. [C. Neilman Brewing Co. vs. Independent
Brewing Co., 191 F., 489, 495, citing Eagle White Lead Co., vs. Pflugh (CC) 180 Fed.
579]. The question at issue in cases of infringement of trademarks is whether the use of
the marks involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistakes in the mind of the
public or deceive purchasers. (Auburn Rubber Corporation vs. Honover Rubber Co., 107
F. 2d 588; . . . .) (Emphasis supplied.)
he fact that the words pale pilsen are part of ABI's trademark does not constitute an infringement
of SMC's trademark: SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN, for "pale pilsen" are generic words
descriptive of the color ("pale"), of a type of beer ("pilsen"), which is a light bohemian beer with
a strong hops flavor that originated in the City of Pilsen in Czechoslovakia and became famous
in the Middle Ages. (Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language,
Unabridged. Edited by Philip Babcock Gove. Springfield, Mass.: G & C Merriam Co., [c] 1976,
page 1716.) "Pilsen" is a "primarily geographically descriptive word," (Sec. 4, subpar. [e]
Republic Act No. 166, as inserted by Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 638) hence, non-registerable and not
appropriable by any beer manufacturer. The Trademark Law provides:
Sec. 4. . . .. The owner of trade-mark, trade-name or service-mark used to distinguish his
goods, business or services from the goods, business or services of others shall have the
right to register the same [on the principal register], unless it:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Consists of a mark or trade-name which, when applied to or used in connection with
the goods, business or services of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively
misdescriptive of them, or when applied to or used in connection with the goods, business or
services of the applicant is primarily geographically descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of
them, or is primarily merely a surname." (Emphasis supplied.)
The words "pale pilsen" may not be appropriated by SMC for its exclusive use even if
they are part of its registered trademark: SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN, any more than such
descriptive words as "evaporated milk," "tomato ketchup," "cheddar cheese," "corn flakes" and
"cooking oil" may be appropriated by any single manufacturer of these food products, for no
other reason than that he was the first to use them in his registered trademark. In Masso
Hermanos, S.A. vs. Director of Patents, 94 Phil. 136, 139 (1953), it was held that a dealer in
shoes cannot register "Leather Shoes" as his trademark because that would be merely descriptive
and it would be unjust to deprive other dealers in leather shoes of the right to use the same words
with reference to their merchandise. No one may appropriate generic or descriptive words. They
belong to the public domain (Ong Ai Gui vs. Director of Patents, 96 Phil. 673, 676 [1955]): (GR
103543, Jul. 5, 1993)

-------------000------------
(Del Monte and Phil Pak vs. CA) Del Monte granted Philpack the right to manufacture,
distribute and sell in the Philippines various agricultural products, including catsup, under the
Del Monte trademark and logo. Del Monte authorized Philpack to register with the Philippine
Patent Office the Del Monte catsup bottle configuration, for which it was granted Certificate of
Trademark Registration No. SR-913 by the Philippine Patent Office under the Supplemental
Register. On November 20, 1972, Del Monte also obtained two registration certificates for its
trademark "DEL MONTE" and its logo. 
Sunshine Sauce Manufacturing Industries was issued a Certificate of Registration by the
Bureau of Domestic Trade on April 17,1980, to engage in the manufacture, packing, distribution
and sale of various kinds of sauce, identified by the logo Sunshine Fruit Catsup. This logo was
registered in the Supplemental Register on September 20, 1983. The product itself was contained
in various kinds of bottles, including the Del Monte bottle, which Sunshine bought from the junk
shops for recycling.
Philpack and Del Monte filed a complaint against Sunshine for infringement of trademark
and unfair competition.
RTC: dismissed the complaint. There were substantial differences between the logos or
trademarks of the parties; that the defendant had ceased using the petitioners' bottles; and that in
any case the defendant became the owner of the said bottles upon its purchase thereof from the
junk yards. Furthermore, the complainants had failed to establish the defendant's malice or bad
faith, which was an essential element of infringement of trademark or unfair competition.
CA: Affirmed RTC 
Held: A number of courts have held that to determine whether a trademark has been
infringed, we must consider the mark as a whole and not as dissected. If the buyer is deceived, it
is attributable to the marks as a totality, not usually to any part of it.  The court therefore should
be guided by its first impression, for a buyer acts quickly and is governed by a casual glance, the
value of which may be dissipated as soon as the court assumes to analyze carefully the respective
features of the mark.
The Sunshine label is a colorable imitation of the Del Monte trademark. The predominant
colors used in the Del Monte label are green and red-orange, the same with Sunshine. The word
"catsup" in both bottles is printed in white and the style of the print/letter is the same. Although
the logo of Sunshine is not a tomato, the figure nevertheless approximates that of a tomato.
As previously stated, the person who infringes a trade mark does not normally copy out
but only makes colorable changes, employing enough points of similarity to confuse the public
with enough points of differences to confuse the courts. What is undeniable is the fact that when
a manufacturer prepares to package his product, he has before him a boundless choice of words,
phrases, colors and symbols sufficient to distinguish his product from the others. When as in this
case, Sunshine chose, without a reasonable explanation, to use the same colors and letters as
those used by Del Monte though the field of its selection was so broad, the inevitable conclusion
is that it was done deliberately to deceive. (GR L-78325, Jan. 23, 1995)
Note: distinctions between infringement of trademark and unfair competition.
(1) Infringement of trademark is the unauthorized use of a trademark, whereas unfair
competition is the passing off of one's goods as those of another.
(2) In infringement of trademark fraudulent intent is unnecessary whereas in unfair
competition fraudulent intent is essential.
(3) In infringement of trademark the prior registration of the trademark is a prerequisite to
the action, whereas in unfair competition registration is not necessary. 8

Doctrine of Related Goods or Services

(Esso v. CA) Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., is engaged in the sale of petroleum products
which are Identified with its trademark ESSO. United Cigarette Corp is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes, which uses the trademark ESSO on its cigarettes, for which a
permit had been duly granted by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
ESSO commenced a case for trademark infringement in the Court of First Instance of
Manila alleging that ESSO had been for many years engaged in the sale of petroleum products
and its trademark ESSO had acquired a considerable goodwill to such an extent that the buying
public had always taken the trademark ESSO as equivalent to high quality petroleum products. It
further asserted that the continued use by private respondent of the same trademark ESSO on its
cigarettes was being carried out for the purpose of deceiving the public as to its quality and
origin to the detriment and disadvantage of its own products. United Cigarette argued that it used
the trademark ESSO on its own product of cigarettes, which was not Identical to those produced
and sold by ESSO and therefore did not in any way infringe on or imitate petitioner's trademark.
It contended that in order that there may be trademark infringement, it is indispensable that the
mark must be used by one person in connection or competition with goods of the same kind as
the complainant's.
Issue: WON there is infringement
Held: The law defines infringement as the use without consent of the trademark owner of
any "reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable limitation of any registered mark or tradename
in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services on
or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive
purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services, or Identity of such
business; or reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate any such mark or tradename and
apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable limitation to labels, signs, prints,
packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection
with such goods, business or services."  Implicit in this definition is the concept that the goods
must be so related that there is a likelihood either of confusion of goods or business. But
likelihood of confusion is a relative concept; to be determined only according to the particular,
and sometimes peculiar, circumstances of each case. 
It is undisputed that the goods on which petitioner uses the trademark ESSO, petroleum
products, and the product of respondent, cigarettes, are non-competing. But as to whether
trademark infringement exists depends for the most part upon whether or not the goods are
so related that the public may be, or is actually, deceived and misled that they came from the
same maker or manufacturer. For non-competing goods may be those which, though they are not
in actual competition, are so related to each other that it might reasonably be assumed that they
originate from one manufacturer. Non-competing goods may also be those which, being
entirely unrelated, could not reasonably be assumed to have a common source. in the former
case of related goods, confusion of business could arise out of the use of similar marks; in the
latter case of non-related goods, it could not. The vast majority of courts today follow the
modern theory or concept of "related goods" which the Court has likewise adopted and
uniformly recognized and applied. 
Goods are related when they belong to the same class or have the same descriptive
properties; when they possess the same physical attributes or essential characteristics with
reference to their form, composition, texture or quality. They may also be related because they
serve the same purpose or are sold in grocery stores.  Thus, biscuits were held related to milk
because they are both food products.  Soap and perfume, lipstick and nail polish are similarly
related because they are common household items nowadays. The trademark "Ang Tibay" for
shoes and slippers was disallowed to be used for shirts and pants because they belong to the
same general class of goods.  Soap and pomade although non- competitive, were held to be
similar or to belong to the same class, since both are toilet articles.  But no confusion or
deception can possibly result or arise when the name "Wellington" which is the trademark for
shirts, pants, drawers and other articles of wear for men, women and children is used as a name
of a department store. 
 In the situation before us, the goods are obviously different from each other with
"absolutely no iota of similitude" as stressed in respondent court's judgment. They are so foreign
to each other as to make it unlikely that purchasers would think that petitioner is the
manufacturer of respondent's goods. The mere fact that one person has adopted and used a
trademark on his goods does not prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark by others
on unrelated articles of a different kind. 
Petitioner uses the trademark ESSO and holds certificate of registration of the trademark
for petroleum products, including aviation gasoline, grease, cigarette lighter fluid and other
various products such as plastics, chemicals, synthetics, gasoline solvents, kerosene, automotive
and industrial fuel, bunker fuel, lubricating oil, fertilizers, gas, alcohol, insecticides and the
ESSO Gasul" burner, while respondent's business is solely for the manufacture and sale of the
unrelated product of cigarettes. The public knows too well that petitioner deals solely with
petroleum products that there is no possibility that cigarettes with ESSO brand will be associated
with whatever good name petitioner's ESSO trademark may have generated. Although
petitioner's products are numerous, they are of the same class or line of merchandise which are
non-competing with respondent's product of cigarettes, which as pointed out in the appealed
judgment is beyond petitioner's "zone of potential or natural and logical expansion" 
The goods involved are non-competitive and non-related is the appellate court's finding
that they flow through different channels of trade, thus: "The products of each party move along
and are disposed through different channels of distribution. The (petitioner's) products are
distributed principally through gasoline service and lubrication stations, automotive shops and
hardware stores. On the other hand, the (respondent's) cigarettes are sold in sari-sari stores,
grocery stores, and other small distributor outlets. (Respondent's) cigarettes are even peddled in
the streets while (petitioner's) 'gasul' burners are not. Finally, there is a marked distinction
between oil and tobacco, as well as between petroleum and cigarettes. Evidently, in kind and
nature the products of (respondent) and of (petitioner) are poles apart."(GR 29971, Aug. 31,
1982)
Elements of Infringement
1. Registration of trademark in IPO
2. Trademark is reproduced, copied, counterfeited, or colorably imitated
3. It is used in connection with the sale, or offering for sale or advertising of goods, services
or business or applied to labels, signs, wrappers, etc. intended to be used in connection
with such goods, services or business
4. There is in the use or application a likelihood of confusion
5. Lack of consent on the part of the registered owner or their assignee
Concept of colorable imitation
The phrase "colorable imitation" denotes such a "close or ingenious imitation as to be
calculated to deceive ordinary persons, or such a resemblance to the original as to deceive an
ordinary purchaser, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, and to cause him to
purchase the one supposing it to be the other." (Etepha v. Director of Patents, GR L-20635, Mar.
31, 1966)

Assignment: What constitutes unfair competition? (See Sec 163.3)

Test of unfair competition
From jurisprudence, unfair competition has been defined as the passing off (or palming
off) or attempting to pass off upon the public of the goods or business of one person as the goods
or business of another with the end and probable effect of deceiving the public. The essential
elements of unfair competition are (1) confusing similarity in the general appearance of the
goods; and (2) intent to deceive the public and defraud a competitor.
Jurisprudence also formulated the following "true test" of unfair competition: whether the
acts of the defendant have the intent of deceiving or are calculated to deceive the ordinary buyer
making his purchases under the ordinary conditions of the particular trade to which the
controversy relates. One of the essential requisites in an action to restrain unfair competition is
proof of fraud; the intent to deceive, actual or probable must be shown before the right to recover
can exist. (Superior Comm’l Ent v. Kunnan Ent Ltd, GR 169974, April 20, 2010)

Copyright

Assignments:
What are considered as original works under the Law on Copyrights? (See Sec 172)
What are considered as derivative works? (See Sec 173)
What are non-copyrightable works? (See Sec 175 and 176)

Rights of a copyright owner:

1. Copyright or Economic Rights (Sec 177)
2. Moral Rights (Sec 193)
3. Right to participate in the gross proceeds of the sale or lease of the original work or droit
de suite (Sec 200)

droit de suite – the inalienable right to receive to the extent of 5% of the gross proceeds of the
sale or lease of a work. exception: prints; etchings; engravings; works of applied art; works
wherein the author primarily derives gain from the proceeds of reproduction
Rules on the ownership of rights
Creator To whom it belongs
Single Creator Author of work, his heirs or assigns
Joint Creator If work consists of unidentifiable parts: co-
authors jointly as co-owners, unless there is
agreement to the contrary
If work consists of identifiable parts: author
of each part owns the part that he has created
Employees Creation If the creation is part of his regular duties:
employer, unless there is an agreement to the
contrary
If it is not part of his regular duties: employee
Commissioned Work Work itself: person commissioning
Copyright: creator, unless there is a written
stipulation to the contrary
Cinematographic Works For all other purposes: producer, author of the
scenario, composer, film director, author of
the work
For exhibition purposes: producer
Anonymous and pseudonymous works Publishers are deemed representatives of the
author, unless:
1. The contrary appears
2. Pseudonymous or adopted name
leaves no doubt as the author’s
identity; or author discloses his
identity
Collective works Contributor is deemed to have waived his
right, unless he expressly reserves it

Letters Writer. However, the court may authorize

their publication or dissemination if the public
good or the interest of justice so requires.
NCC Art. 723

Assignment/Application:
Alaissa and Claudette are noted artists whose paintings are highly prized by collectors. Dr.
Papio commissioned them to paint a mural at the main lobby of his new hospital for children.
Both agreed to collaborate on the project for a total fee of two million pesos to be equally
divided between them. It was also agreed that Dr. Papio had to provide all the materials for the
painting and pay for the wages of technicians and laborers needed for the work on the project.
Assume that the project is completed and both Alaissa and Claudette are fully paid the amount of
P2M as artists’ fee by Dr. Papio. Under the Law on intellectual property, who will own the
mural? Who will own the copyright in the mural? Explain.

Doctrine of Fair Use

A privilege of persons other than the owner of the copyright to use the copyrighted material in a
reasonable manner without his consent, notwithstanding the monopoly granted to the owner by
the copyright. It does not constitute infringement.
1. Critizing, commenting, and new reporting
2. Using for instructional purposes, including producing multiple copies for classroom use,
for scholarship, research and similar purposes; and
3. Decompilation-the reproduction of the code and translation of the forms of the computer
program to achieve the inter-operability of an independently created computer program
with other computer programs (Sec. 185)
Test to determine whether use is fair or not
1. Purpose and the character of the use
2. Nature of the copyrighted work
3. Amount and substantiality of the portions used; and
4. Effect of the use upon the potential market of the copyrighted work (Sec. 185)