Habana vs. Robles G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999 Facts
Habana is the author of the copyrighted book entitled College English for Today (CET). Robles and GoodWill is the author and publisher of the book entitled Deeloping English !roficiency (DE!). When Habana et al. try to reise their "ork they encountered by chance that the "ork of Robles (DE!) is si#ilar of the contents$ sche#e of presentation$ illustrations and illustratie e%a#ples in their o"n book. &fter an ite#i'ed e%a#ination and co#parison of the t"o books (CET and DE!)$ Habana found that seeral pages of the Robles book are si#ilar$ if not all together a copy of Habanas book$ "hich is a case of plagiaris# and copyright infringe#ent. Habana then #ade de#ands for da#ages against respondents and also de#anded that they cease and desist fro# further selling and distributing to the general public the infringed copies of Robles "orks. Ho"eer$ Robles Robles ignored the de#ands$ hence$ Habana et al. filed "ith the Regional Trial Trial Court$ akati$ a co#plaint for *+nfringe#ent and,or unfair co#petition "ith da#ages- against priate respondents. Issues
Whether or not$ despite the apparent te%tual$ the#atic and seuential si#ilarity bet"een DE! and CET$ Robles co##itted no copyright infringe#ent/ Held No, Robles still committed copyright infringement.
Robles act of lifting fro# the book of petitioners substantial portions of discussions and e%a#ples$ and her failure to ackno"ledge the sa#e in her book is an infringe#ent of petitioners copyrights. +n cases of infringe#ent$ copying alone is not "hat is prohibited. The copying #ust produce an *in0urious effect-. Here$ the in0ury consists in that Robles lifted fro# Habanas book #aterials that "ere the result of the latters research "ork and co#pilation and #isrepresented the# as her o"n. 1he circulated the book DE! for co##ercial use and did not ackno"ledge Habana as her source. Hence$ there is a clear case of appropriation of copyrighted "ork for her benefit that Robles co##itted. Habanas "ork as authors is the product of their long and assiduous research and for another to represent it as her o"n is in0ury enough. +n copyrighting books the purpose is to gie protection to the intellectual product of an author. This is precisely "hat the la" on copyright protected$ under 1ection 234.2 (b). 5uotations fro# a published "ork if they are co#patible "ith fair use and only to the e%tent 0ustified by the purpose$ including uotations fro# ne"spaper ne"spaper articles and periodicals in the for# of press su##aries are allo"ed proided that the source and the na#e of the author$ if appearing on the "ork$ are #entioned. Notes
When is there a substantial reproduction of a book/ +t does not necessarily reuire that the entire copyrighted "ork$ or een a large portion of it$ be copied. +f so #uch is taken that the alue of the original "ork is substantially di#inished$ there is an infringe#ent of copyright and to an in0urious e%tent$ the "ork is appropriated. +n deter#ining the uestion of infringe#ent$ the a#ount of #atter copied fro# the copyrighted "ork is an i#portant consideration. To constitute infringe#ent$ it is not necessary that the "hole or een a large portion of the "ork shall hae been copied. +f so #uch is taken that the alue of the original is sensibly di#inished$ or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an in0urious e%tent appropriated by another$ that is sufficient in point of la" to constitute piracy. The essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in conceptual ter#s in order to underscore its graity grai ty by an appro appropriat priate e unders understandi tanding ng ther thereof. eof. +nfringe#ent +nfringe#ent of a copyr copyright ight is a tres trespass pass on a pri priate ate do#ain o"ned and occupied by the o"ner of the copyright$ and$ therefore$ protected by la"$ and infringe#ent of copyright$ or piracy$ "hich is a synony#ous ter# in this connection$ consists in the doing by any person$ "ithout the consent of the o"ner of the copyright$ of anything the sole right to do "hich is conferred by statute on the o"ner of the copyright. !iracy & copy of a piracy is is an infringe#ent of of the original$ and it is no defense defense that the pirate$ pirate$ in such cases$ did did not kno" "hether or not he "as infringing any copyright6 he at least kne" that "hat he "as copying "as not his$ and he copied at his peril.
Facts
Habana is the author of the copyrighted book entitled College English for Today (CET). Robles and GoodWill is the author and publisher of the book entitled Deeloping English !roficiency (DE!). When Habana et al. try to reise their "ork they encountered by chance that the "ork of Robles (DE!) is si#ilar of the contents$ sche#e of presentation$ illustrations and illustratie e%a#ples in their o"n book. &fter an ite#i'ed e%a#ination and co#parison of the t"o books (CET and DE!)$ Habana found that seeral pages of the Robles book are si#ilar$ if not all together a copy of Habanas book$ "hich is a case of plagiaris# and copyright infringe#ent. Habana then #ade de#ands for da#ages against respondents and also de#anded that they cease and desist fro# further selling and distributing to the general public the infringed copies of Robles "orks. Ho"eer$ Robles ignored the de#ands$ hence$ Habana et al. filed "ith the Regional Trial Court$ akati$ a co#plaint for *+nfringe#ent and,or unfair co#petition "ith da#ages- against priate respondents. Issues
Whether or not$ despite the apparent te%tual$ the#atic and seuential si#ilarity bet"een DE! and CET$ Robles co##itted no copyright infringe#ent/ Held
7o$ Robles still co##itted copyright infringe#ent. Robles act of lifting fro# the book of petitioners substantial portions of discussions and e%a#ples$ and her failure to ackno"ledge the sa#e in her book is an infringe#ent of petitioners copyrights. +n cases of infringe#ent$ copying alone is not "hat is prohibited. The copying #ust produce an *in0urious effect-. Here$ the in0ury consists in that Robles lifted fro# Habanas book #aterials that "ere the result of the latters research "ork and co#pilation and #isrepresented the# as her o"n. 1he circulated the book DE! for co##ercial use and did not ackno"ledge Habana as her source. Hence$ there is a clear case of appropriation of copyrighted "ork for her benefit that Robles co##itted. Habanas "ork as authors is the product of their long and assiduous research and for another to represent it as her o"n is in0ury enough. +n copyrighting books the purpose is to gie protection to the intellectual product of an author. This is precisely "hat the la" on cop yright protected$ under 1ection 234.2 (b). 5uotations fro# a published "ork if they are co#patible "ith fair use and only to the e%tent 0ustified by the purpose$ including uotations fro# ne"spaper articles and periodicals in the for# of press su##aries are allo"ed proided that the source and the na#e of the author$ if appearing on the "ork$ are #entioned.
G.R. Nos. L-76649-51. !g!st 19, 19"".# $%&' ()N&*R+ /L0 (RR&/N, petitioner, 2s. (*R& )L3, )*R 0. RR)&, R*L 3G*LL nd R&*N) L))30, respondents.
Petitioners clai!"
The petitioner #aintains that the lo"er court issued the uestioned search "arrants after finding the e%istence of a probable cause 0ustifying their issuance. &ccording to the petitioner$ the lo"er court arried at this conclusion on the basis of the depositions of applicant 78+9s t"o "itnesses "hich "ere taken through searching uestions and ans"ers by the lo"er court. Res#ondents clai!"
The respondent posits that the three uestioned search "arrants against the priate respondents should be lifeted on the ground that it acted on the application for the issuance of the said search "arrants and granted it on the #isrepresentations of applicant 78+ and its "itnesses that infringe#ent of copyright or a piracy of a particular fil# hae been co##itted. They also #aintained that the presentation of the #aster tapes of the copyrighted fil#s fro# "hich the pirated fil#s "ere allegedly copied$ "as necessary for the alidity of search "arrants against those "ho hae in their possession the pirated fil#s. The petitioner9s argu#ent to the effect that the presentation of the #aster tapes at the ti#e of application #ay not be necessary as these "ould be #erely eidentiary in
nature and not deter#inatie of "hether or not a probable cause e%ists to 0ustify the issuance of the search "arrants is not #eritorious. $.%. Rulin&"
The presentation of the #aster tapes of the copyrighted fil#s fro# "hich the pirated fil#s "ere allegedly copied$ "as necessary for the alidity of search "arrants against those "ho hae in their possession the pirated fil#s. The petitioner9s argu#ent to the effect that the presentation of the #aster tapes at the ti#e of application #ay not be necessary as these "ould be #erely eidentiary in nature and not deter#inatie of "hether or not a probable cause e%ists to 0ustify the issuance of the search "arrants is not #eritorious. The court cannot presu#e that duplicate or copied tapes "ere necessarily reproduced fro# #aster tapes that it o"ns. The application for search "arrants "as directed against ideo tape outlets "hich allegedly "ere engaged in the unauthori'ed sale and renting out of copyrighted fil#s belonging to the petitioner pursuant to !.D. 4:. The essence of a copyright infringe#ent is the si#ilarity or at least substantial si#ilarity of the purported pirated "orks to the copyrighted "ork. Hence$ the applicant #ust present to the court the copyrighted fil#s to co#pare the# "ith the purchased eidence of the ideo tapes allegedly pirated to deter#ine "hether the latter is an unauthori'ed reproduction of the for#er. This linkage of the copyrighted fil#s to the pirated fil#s #ust be established to satisfy the reuire#ents of probable cause. ere allegations as to the e%istence of the copyrighted fil#s cannot sere as basis for the issuance of a search "arrant. %olu!bia Pictures vs. %', 2(1 $%R' 1)) *199(+ Facts
Colu#bia !ictures lodged a for#al co#plaint "ith the 7ational 8ureau of +nestigation for iolation of !D 7o. 4:$ as a#ended$ and sought its assistance in their anti;fil# piracy drie. &gents of the 78+ and priate researchers #ade discreet sureillance on arious ideo establish#ents in etro anila including 1unshine Ho#e $ 78+ 1enior &gent ?auro C. Reyes applied for a search "arrant "ith the court a uo against 1unshine seeking the sei'ure$ a#ong others$ of pirated ideo tapes of copyrighted fil#s all of "hich "ere enu#erated in a list attached to the application6 and$ teleision sets$ ideo cassettes and,or laser disc recordings euip#ent and other #achines and paraphernalia used or intended to be used in the unla"ful e%hibition$ sho"ing$ reproduction$ sale$ lease or disposition of ideogra#s tapes in the pre#ises aboe described. +n the hearing of the application$ 78+ 1enior &gent ?auro C. Reyes$ upon uestions by the court a uo$ reiterated in substance his aer#ents in his affidait. His testi#ony "as corroborated by another "itness$ r. Rene C. 8alta'ar. &tty. Rico <. Do#ingos deposition "as also taken. =n the basis of the affidaits and depositions of 78+ 1enior &gent ?auro C. Reyes$ Rene C. 8alta'ar and &tty. Rico <. Do#ingo$ 1earch Warrant 7o 3>;@AB for iolation of 1ection A of !D 7o. 4:$ as a#ended$ "as issued by the court a uo. 78+ &gents found and sei'ed arious ideo tapes of duly copyrighted #otion pictures,fil#s o"ned or e%clusiely distributed by priate co#plainants$ and #achines$ euip#ent$ teleision sets$ paraphernalia$ #aterials$ accessories all of "hich "ere included in the receipt for properties acco#plished by the raiding tea#. Copy of the receipt "as furnished and,or tendered to r. Danilo &. !elindario$ registered o"ner; proprietor of 1unshine Ho#e
Whether or not absence such registration$ as in this case$ there "as no right created$ hence$ no infringe#ent under !D 4: as a#ended/ Held
&s correctly pointed out by priate co#plainants;oppositors$ the Depart#ent of ustice has resoled this legal uestion as far back as Dece#ber 2$ 2:>3 in its =pinion 7o. 2:2 of the then 1ecretary of ustice
Further#ore$ a closer reie" of !residential Decree 7o. 4: reeals that een "ith respect to "orks "hich are reuired under 1ection thereof to be registered and "ith copies to be deposited "ith the 7ational ?ibrary$ such as books$ including co#posite and cyclopedic "orks$ #anuscripts$ directories and ga'etteers6 and periodicals$ including pa#phlets and ne"spapers6 lectures$ ser#ons$ addresses$ dissertations prepared for oral deliery6 and letters$ the failure to co#ply "ith said reuire#ents does not deprie the copyright o"ner of the right to sue for infringe#ent. 1uch non;co#pliance #erely li#its the re#edies aailable to hi# and sub0ects hi# to the corresponding sanction. The reason for this is e%pressed in 1ection of the decree "hich prefaces its enu#eration of copyrightable "orks "ith the e%plicit state#ent that *the rights granted under this Decree shall$ fro# the #o#ent of creation$ subsist "ith respect to any of the follo"ing classes of "orks.- This #eans that under the present state of the la"$ the copyright for a "ork is acuired by an intellectual creator fro# the #o#ent of creation een in the absence of registration and deposit. &s has been authoritatiely clarified The registration and deposit of t"o co#plete copies or reproductions of the "ork "ith the 7ational ?ibrary "ithin three "eeks after the first public disse#ination or perfor#ance of the "ork$ as proided for in 1ection (!.D. 7o. 4:$ as a#ended)$ is not for the purpose of securing a copyright of the "ork$ but rather to aoid the penalty for non;co#pliance of the deposit of said t"o copies and in order to recoer da#ages in an infringe#ent suit. $.%. Rulin&"
There is #erit in petitioners9 i#passioned and "ell;founded argu#entation. +n fine$ the supposed pronunciamento in said case regarding the necessity for the presentation of the #aster tapes of the
copyrighted fil#s for the alidity of search "arrants should at #ost be understood to #erely sere as a guidepost in deter#ining the e%istence of probable cause in copyright infringe#ent cases where there is doubt as to the true nexus between the master tape and the pirated copies . &n ob0ectie and careful reading of the decision in said case could lead to no other conclusion than that said directie "as hardly intended to be a s"eeping and infle%ible reuire#ent in all or si#ilar copyright infringe#ent cases. udicial dicta should al"ays be construed "ithin the factual #atri% of their parturition$ other"ise a careless interpretation thereof could unfairly fault the "riter "ith the ice of oerstate#ent and the reader "ith the fallacy of undue generali'ation. +t is eidently incorrect to suggest$ as the ruling in 20th Century Fox #ay appear to do$ that in copyright infringe#ent cases$ the presentation of #aster tapes of the copyrighted fil#s is al"ays necessary to #eet the reuire#ent of probable cause and that$ in the absence thereof$ there can be no finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search "arrant.
a-ta vs. Pa&linaan, )) P/il. 055 *1910+ Facts
?akta" is the registered o"ner and author of a literary "ork entitled Diccionario Hispano;Tagalog (1panish;Tagalog Dictionary) published in the City of anila in 233: by the printing establish#ent ?a =pinion. !aglina"an "ithout the consent of ?akta"$ reproduced said literary "ork$ i#properly copied the greater part thereof in the "ork published by hi# and entitled Diccionariong astila;Tagalog (1panish;Tagalog Dictionary). The act of !agli"anan is a iolation of article > of the ?a" of anuary 2@$ 23>:$ on +ntellectual !roperty$ caused irreparable in0uries to ?akta" "ho "as surprised "hen$ on publishing his ne" "ork entitled Diccionario Tagalog;Hispano (Tagalog;1panish Dictionary) he learned of the fact$ and (4) that the da#ages occasioned to hi# by the publication of !aglina"an9s "ork a#ounted to I2@$@@@. ?akta" prayed the court to order the !aglina"an to "ithdra" fro# sale all stock of the "ork of !aglina"an to pay hi# the su# of I2@$@@@$ "ith costs. !aglina"an in his ans"er denied generally each and eery allegation of the co#plaint and prayed the court to absole hi# fro# the co#plaint. a
&rticle > of the ?a" of anuary 2@$ 23>:$ on +ntellectual !roperty 7obody #ay reproduce another person9s "ork "ithout the o"ner9s consent$ een #erely to annotate or add anything to it$ or i#proe any edition thereof. Issue
Whether or not !aglina"an iolated &rticle > of the +ntellectual !roperty ?a" (23>:)/
Held
Jes$ !aglina"an iolated &rticle > of +ntellectual !roperty ?a". +t is not necessary that a "ork should be an i#proper copy of another "ork preiously published. +t is enough that another9s "ork has been reproduced "ithout the consent of the o"ner$ een though it be only to annotate$ add so#ething to it$ or i#proe any edition thereof. &s early as 2:23$ the 1upre#e Court enunciated that a person "ho published a 1panish;Tagalog dictionary and copied the euialents$ definitions and different #eanings gien in another authors 1panish;Tagalog dictionary$ although #aking so#e additions of his o"n and so#e uni#portant changes in the e%a#ples to illustrate the #eanings of the "ords$ has iolated the intellectual property rights of other author. The 1upre#e Court reasoned that although "ords are not the property of anybody$ their definitions$ the e%a#ple that e%plain their sense and the #anner of e%pressing their different #eanings$ #ay constitute special "ork. $ony usic ntertain!ent *P/ils.+, Inc. vs Jud&e olores s#a4ol 453 SCRA 360 – ercanti!e "aw – #nte!!ectua! $roperty – "aw on Copyri%ht – $robab!e Cause
+n @@@$ 1ony usic Entertain#ent (!hils.)$ +nc. sought the assistance of the 7ational 8ureau of +nestigation (78+) agent ?ain as they co#plained that 1olid ?aguna Corporation$ together "ith its officers "ere engaged in the replication$ reproduction and distribution of 1ony ideogra#s "ithout license and authority fro# the )6 that 1olid ?aguna "as #anufacturing$ selling$ and distributing arious titles of CDs in iolation of 1ony usics copyrights (and a iolation of R& 3:B). &gent ?ain$ in applying for a search "arrant$ stated before udge Dolores EspaKol that an unna#ed person proided the# infor#ation as to the presence of pirated CDs in the pre#ises of 1olid ?aguna6 that ?ain and other "itnesses "ere acco#panied by unna#ed persons to enter the pre#ise and conduct further inestigation. The 0udge then issued t"o corresponding search "arrants6 one for probable iolation of !D 2:3> and the other for probable iolation of R& 3:B. The search "arrants "ere subseuently enforced and ite#s "ere sei'ed fro# 1olid ?aguna on the strength of the t"o "arrants. 1olid ?aguna thereafter presented a certification that they are actually authori'ed to #anufacture and sell CDs by the . udge EspaKol later uashed the other "arrant because of the fact that the ite#s sei'ed as a result of the t"o "arrants "ere co##ingled hence they cannot be e%a#ined properly. udge EspaKol also ruled that the issuance of the "arrant ste##ed fro# the inti#ation #ade by petitioners that 1olid ?aguna "as not authori'ed to #anufacture and sell CDs but in fact they "ere authori'ed by the
cause. udge EspaKol did not accordingly err in uashing the sa#e$ let alone graely abuse her discretion. +t is also "ithin her authority to uash the said "arrants based on her findings "hich "ere found to be alid by the 1upre#e Court. Further$ it cannot be oere#phasi'ed that not one of the applicants of the "arrants testified seeing the pirated discs being #anufactured at 1olid ?agunas pre#ises$ they #erely relied on unna#ed persons "hich is at best are hearsays. The 1upre#e Court also noted that the lack of supporting eidence and docu#ents in applying for the search "arrants on this infringe#ent case does not #ean that the #aster tapes of the alleged copies being pirated should hae been produced. +t is true that the 1upre#e Court$ in 20 th Century Fox Case& underscored the necessity$ in deter#ining the e%istence of probable cause in copyright
infringe#ent cases$ of presenting the #aster tapes of the copyrighted "ork. 8ut$ as e#phatically clarified
in Co!umbia $ictures 's CA *such auxi!iary procedure& howe'er& does not ru!e out the use o( testimonia! or documentary e'idence& depositions& admissions or other c!asses o( e'idence xxx especia!!y where the production in court o( ob)ect e'idence wou!d resu!t in de!ay& incon'enience or expenses out o( proportion to its e'identiary 'a!ue. What the 1upre#e Court is saying is that any eidence presented in lieu of the
#aster tapes$ if not readily aailable$ in si#ilar application proceedings #ust be reliable$ and$ if testi#onial$ it #ust$ at the ery least$ be based on the "itness personal kno"ledge.
Pe opl eoft hePhi l i ppi ne sv .Chr i s t ophe rChoi ,G. R.No.1 52 95 0,Augus t3 ,2 00 6 Mi c r o sof tCor por a t i onv .Be stDe alComput e rCe nt e rCor por a t i on,e t . a l . ,G. R.No.1 48 02 9, Sept ember24,2002
6ilson 7n& %/in& 8ian %/un& vs %/ina National %ereals 7il and Foodstus I!#ort and :#ort %or#. 333 SCRA 3*0 – ercanti!e "aw – #nte!!ectua! $roperty – "aw on Copyri%ht – Forum Shoppin% – "itis $endentia
Wilson =ng Ching ian Chung is selling er#icelli (sotanghon) using his copyrighted cellophane "rapper "ith the t"o;dragons designed label. +n 2::B$ Wilson =ng sued ?oren'o Tan for infringing upon his copyrighted cellophanes. Wilson =ng alleged that Tan "as i#porting sotanghon fro# China 7ational Cereals =ils and Foodstuffs +#port and E%port Corporation and then Tan "ould use Wilson =ngs copyrighted cellophanes to sell the sotanghon. While the case "as pending before the 5ue'on City RTC$ China 7ational Cereals filed another co#plaint to cancel the copyright of Wilson =ng before the anila RTC. udge !alattao of the anila RTC issued a te#porary restraining order en0oining Wilson =ng fro# using his copyrighted cellophanes. Eentually$ Wilson =ng appealed before the Court of &ppeals uestioning the TR=. The Court of &ppeals in the body of its decision cited that the case before the anila RTC should hae been dis#issed because of litis pendentia and foru# shopping$ there being an e%isting case before the 5C RTC "hich is a co;eual court of the anila RTC. 8ut in the dispositie portion of the C& decision$ it said that the anila RTC has the discretion to dis#iss the case. anila RTC did not dis#iss the case but rather it ordered the cancellation of Wilson =ngs copyright. The anila RTC inoked that though the C& cited foru# shopping and litis pendentia as grounds for dis#issing the case the C& did not order anila RTC to actually dis#iss the case but rather it gae the anila RTC the discretion to continue hearing the case. I$$" Whether or not the anila RTC is correct. H" 7o. The general rule states that the dispositie portion of a udg#ent beco#es the sub0ect of
e%ecution. Ho"eer$ there are e%ceptions to this rule and one of the e%ceptions is that if the dispositie portion differs "ith the discussion in the body of the decision such as in the case at bar. This is because the dispositie portion finds support fro# the decisions ratio decidendi. The 5ue'on City court and the anila court hae concurrent 0urisdiction oer the case. Ho"eer$ "hen the 5ue'on City court acuired 0urisdiction oer the case$ it e%cluded all other courts of concurrent 0urisdiction fro# acuiring 0urisdiction oer the sa#e. The anila court is$ therefore$ deoid of 0urisdiction oer the co#plaint filed resulting in the assailed decision "hich #ust perforce be declared null and oid. To hold other"ise "ould be to risk instances "here courts of concurrent 0urisdiction #ight hae conflicting orders.
astar %or#oration v. ;entiet/ %entury Fo: Fil! %or#oration 539 .$. 23, 123 $.%t. 2<)1
Facts Dastar used ideo footage fro# a teleision series that "as in the public do#ain to create a slightly different ideo of their o"n$ and then sold it co##ercially "ithout giing credit to Fo%$ "ho "as the originator of the ideo. Fo%s copyright in the original ideo e%pired in 2:>>. Fo% sued for copyright and ?anha# &ct iolations. 1C=TL1 reie"ed the ?anha# &ct clai#$ specifically M4B(a) of the ?anha# &ct$ 2A L.1.C. M 22A(a)$ in "hich Fo% alleged that Dastar had #ade a *false designation of origin$ false or #isleading description of fact$ or false or #isleading representation of fact$ "hich N is likely to cause confusion N as to the origin N of its goods.- Fo% clai#s that Dastar should be found liable for *reerse passing off$- "hich is "hen a producer #isrepresents so#eone elses goods or serices as their o"n$ "hich is forbidden by the ?anha# &ct. !rocedural History 1u##ary 0udg#ent "as granted to the plaintiff by the District Court. &ppeal "as taken$ and the ?anha# &ct clai# "as affir#ed by the 7inth Circuit. 1C=TL1 granted Certiorari regarding the ?anha# &ct clai#. Holding 1ection 4B(a) of the ?anha# &ct does not preent the unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted "ork. 1ection 4B(a) should not be stretched to coer #atters that are of no conseuence to purchasers$ because giing ?anha# &ct protection to such products "ould cause it to conflict "ith copyright la". &nalysis The Court deter#ined that Dastar "as the *origin- of the physical product that it sold. Dastar took #aterial fro# the public do#ain$ #odified it$ and sold the resulting product as its o"n. Fo% clai#ed that these actions by Dastar constituted *false #isrepresentation- as to the *origin- of its goods$ and constituted *reerse passing off.- Ho"eer$ the Court reasoned that the #eaning of the "ord *origin- in the statute here rested solely on the #anufacturer of the goods$ and did not e%tend to the creator of the underlying "ork. Copyright la" allo"s copying "ithout attribution once a copyright has e%pired$ si#ilarly to the right *to #ake an article "hose patent has e%pired$ including the right to #ake it in precisely the shape it carried "hen patented.Here$ Fo% had tried to #ake #oney fro# its creatie "ork after the copyright had e%pired by trying to shoehorn Dastar into a ?anha# &ct iolation. <hough the facts in the case do not sho" "hether there #ight hae been any pre;litigation atte#pts by Fo% to try to coerce Dastar into licensing the original ideo fro# Fo%$ ulti#ately this ruling sho"s that Dastar did not hae to pay Fo% anything to use the ideo any"ay$ since once a creatie "ork passes into the public do#ain$ anybody #ay freely copy or transfor# the "ork in any "ay they please.
icrosot %or#oration vs a:icor#, Inc. 43+ SCRA 224 – ercanti!e "aw – #nte!!ectua! $roperty – "aw on Copyri%ht – $robab!e Cause in #ssuin% Search ,arrant
+n 2::$ Do#inador 1a#iano$ r.$ an agent of the 7ational 8ureau of +nestigation (78+) conducted a sureillance against a%icorp$ +nc. He obsered that icrosoft 1oft"ares (Windo"s =perating 1yste#s) "ere being produced and packaged "ithin the pre#ises of a%icorp. 1a#iano$ together "ith a ciilian "itness (ohn 8enedict 1acri') then bought a co#puter unit fro# a%icorp. The unit "as pre; installed "ith a pirated copy of Windo"s. For their purchase$ they "ere issued a receipt$ ho"eer$ the receipt "as in the na#e of a certain *oel Dia'-. 1ubseuently$ 1a#iano applied for a search "arrant before the RTC. He brought "ith hi# 1acri' as "itness. He also brought the co#puter unit they bought as eidence as "ell as the receipt. He een added an additional "itness (Feli%berto !ante)$ a co#puter technician$ "ho sho"ed the 0udge that the soft"are in the co#puter unit bought by 1a#iano fro# a%icorp "as pirated. The RTC 0udge$ coninced that there is a probable cause for a case of copyright infringe#ent and unfair co#petition co##itted by a%icorp$ issued the corresponding "arrant. a%icorp assailed the legality of the "arrant before the Court of &ppeals. The Court of &ppeals ruled in faor of
a%icorp and in its decision it highlighted the fact that the receipt issued "as not in 1a#ianos or 1acri' na#e hence the proceeding in the trial court "as infir# fro# the onset. I$$ Whether or not the Court of &ppeals is correct. H" 7o. The testi#onies of the t"o "itnesses$ coupled "ith the ob0ect and docu#entary eidence they
presented$ are sufficient to establish the e%istence of probable cause. Fro# "hat they hae "itnessed$ there is reason to beliee that a%icorp engaged in copyright infringe#ent and unfair co#petition to the pre0udice of icrosoft. 8oth 78+ &gent 1a#iano and 1acri' "ere clear and insistent that the counterfeit soft"are "ere not only displayed and sold "ithin a%icorps pre#ises$ they "ere also produced$ packaged and in so#e cases$ installed there. The fact that the receipt issued "as not in 1a#ianos na#e nor "as it in 1acri' na#e does not render the issuance of the "arrant oid. 7o la" or rule states that probable cause reuires a specific kind of eidence. 7o for#ula or fi%ed rule for its deter#ination e%ists. !robable cause is deter#ined in the light of conditions obtaining in a gien situation.Thus$ it "as i#proper for the Court of &ppeals to reerse the RTCs findings si#ply because the sales receipt eidencing 78+ &gent 1a#ianos purchase of counterfeit goods is not in his na#e.
N=I, icrosot %or#oration vs Judy Han& 460 SCRA 42+ – ercanti!e "aw – #nte!!ectua! $roperty – "aw on Copyri%ht – Copyri%ht #n(rin%ement
+n ay 2::B$ icrosoft Corporation and 8eltron Co#puter !hilippines$ +nc. entered into a ?icensing &gree#ent. Lnder 1ection (a) of the &gree#ent$ icrosoft authori'ed 8eltron$ for a fee$ to 2. Reproduce and install no #ore than one copy of Windo"s on each Custo#er 1yste# hard disk6 . Distribute directly or indirectly and license copies of Windo"s (reproduced as per 1ection of the &gree#ent and,or acuired fro# an &uthori'ed Replicator or &uthori'ed Distributor. Their agree#ent allo"ed either party to ter#inate if one fails to co#ply "ith their respectie obligations. icrosoft ter#inated the &gree#ent in une 2::A by reason of 8eltrons non;pay#ent of royalties. ?ater$ icrosoft learned that 8eltron "as illegally copying and selling copies of Windo"s. icrosoft then sought the assistance of the 7ational 8ureau of +nestigation. 78+ agents #ade so#e purchase fro# 8eltron "here they acuired a co#puter unit pre;installed "ith Windo"s$ 2 "indo"sinstaller CDs packed as icrosoft products. The agents "ere not gien the end;user license agree#ents$ user #anuals$ and certificates of authenticity for the products purchased. They "ere gien a receipt "hich has a header of *T..T.C. (!hils) +nc. 8E?TR=7 C=!LTER-. TTC stands for Tai"an achinery Display and Trade Center. & search "arrant "as subseuently issued "here $3B2 CDs of Windo"s installers$ a#ong others$ "ere sei'ed. 8ased on the ite#s sei'ed fro# 8eltron$ icrosoft filed a case of copyright infringe#ent against 8eltron and TTC as "ell as their officers (udy H"ang et al) before the Depart#ent of ustice (D=). 8eltron$ in its counter;affidait$ argued the follo"ing 2. That icrosofts issue "ith 8eltron "as really 0ust to hae leerage in forcing 8eltron to pay the unpaid royalties6 and that icrosoft should hae filed a collection suit. . That the co#puter unit allegedly purchased by the 78+ agents fro# the# cannot be decisiely traced as co#ing fro# 8eltron because the receipt issued to the agents did not list the co#puter unit as one of the ite#s bought.
B. That the 2 installers purchased by the agents "hich are actually listed in the receipt "ere not #anufactured by 8eltron but rather they "ere genuine copies purchased by TTC fro# an authori'ed icrosoft seller in 1ingapore. 4. That the $3B2 installers sei'ed fro# the# "ere not a property of 8eltron but rather they "ere left to the# by so#eone for safekeeping. The D= secretary agreed "ith 8eltron and dis#issed the case. The 1ecretary ruled that the issue of the authority of 8eltron to copy and sell icrosoft products should first be resoled in a ciil suit. icrosoft appealed the decision of the D= secretary before the 1upre#e Court. ean"hile$ 8eltron filed a #otion to uash the search "arrant before the RTC that issued the sa#e. The RTC partially granted the uashal. The Court of &ppeals reersed the RTC. H"ang et al did not appeal the C& decision. I$$" Whether or not the D= 1ecretary is correct. H" 7o. 1ection A of !residential Decree 4: enu#erates the rights ested e%clusiely on the copyright
o"ner. Contrary to the D=s ruling$ the graa#en of copyright infringe#ent is not #erely the unauthori'ed *#anufacturing- of intellectual "orks but rather the unauthori'ed perfor#ance of any of the acts coered by 1ection A. Hence$ any person "ho perfor#s any of the acts under 1ection A "ithout obtaining the copyright o"ners prior consent renders hi#self ciilly and cri#inally liable for copyright infringe#ent. +nfringe#ent of a copyright is a trespass on a priate do#ain o"ned and occupied by the o"ner of the copyright$ and$ therefore$ protected by la"$ and infringe#ent of copyright$ or piracy$ "hich is a synony#ous ter# in this connection$ consists in the doing by any person$ "ithout the consent of the o"ner of the copyright$ of anything the sole right to do "hich is conferred by statute on the o"ner of the copyright. 8eing the copyright and trade#ark o"ner of icrosoft soft"are$ icrosoft acted "ell "ithin its rights in filing the co#plaint before D= on the incri#inating eidence obtained fro# 8eltron. Hence$ it "as highly irregular for the D= to hold that icrosoft sought the issuance of the search "arrants and the filing of the co#plaint #erely to pressure 8eltron to pay its oerdue royalties to icrosoft. There is no basis for the D= to rule that icrosoft #ust a"ait a prior *resolution fro# the proper court of "hether or not the &gree#ent is still binding bet"een the parties.- 8eltron has not filed any suit to uestion icrosofts ter#ination of the &gree#ent. icrosoft can neither be e%pected nor co#pelled to "ait until 8eltron decides to sue before icrosoft can seek re#edies for iolation of its intellectual property rights. Further#ore$ the articles sei'ed fro# 8eltron are counterfeit per se because icrosoft does not (and could not hae authori'ed anyone to) produce such CD installers The copying of the genuine icrosoft soft"are to produce these fake CDs and their distribution are illegal een if the copier or distributor is a icrosoft licensee. &s far as these installer CD;R=s are concerned$ the &gree#ent (and the alleged uestion on the alidity of its ter#ination) is i##aterial to the deter#ination of 8eltrons liability for copyright infringe#ent and unfair co#petition. 8eltrons defense that the bo% of CD installers found in their possession "as only left to the# for safekeeping is not tenable.
Mi cr osof t&AdobeSyst emsvs.Far aj al l ahet .al( New Fi el ds)SCGRNo.205800( 2014)
