29. Francisco Joaquin, Jr.

vs Franklin
Drilon
302 SCRA 225 Mercantile Law Intellectual Property Law on
Copyright Game Show Ideas and Concepts Not Covered by
Copyright Presentation of the Master Tape
BJ Productions Inc. (BJPI) was the holder of copyright over the show
Rhoda and Me. It holds rights over the shows format and style of
presentation. In 1991, BJPIs president Francisco Joaquin saw on TV
RPN 9s show Its a Date, a show which is basically the same as
Rhoda and Me. He eventually sued Gabriel Zosa, the manager of the
show Its a Date. The investigating prosecutor found probable cause
against Zosa. Zosa later sought a review of the prosecutors resolution
before the Secretary of Justice (Franklin Drilon). Drilon reversed the
findings of the fiscal and directed him to dismiss the case against Zosa.
ISSUE: Whether or not the orderof Drilon finding no probable cause
is valid.
HELD: Yes. The essence of copyright infringement is the copying, in
whole or in part, of copyrightable materials as defined and
enumerated in Section 2 of PD. No. 49 (Copyright Law).Apart from
the manner in which it is actually expressed, however, the idea of a
dating game show is a non-copyrightable material. Ideas, concepts,
formats, or schemes in their abstract form clearly do not fall
within the class of works or materials susceptible of
copyright registration as provided in PD. No. 49.What is covered
by BJPIs copyright is the specific episodes of the show Rhoda and Me.
Further, BJPI should have presented the master videotape of the show
in order to show the linkage between the copyright show (Rhoda and
Me) and the infringing show (Its a Date). This is based on the ruling
in 20th Century Fox vs CA (though this has been qualified by Columbia
Pictures vs CA, this is still good law). Though BJPI did provide a lot of
written evidence and description to show the linkage between the
shows, the same were not enough. 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.

30. ABS-CBN v. Philippine Multi-Media System (G.R. No. 175769-70)

Julie CaadanJune 9, 2016
Facts:
Petitioner ABS-CBN, a broadcasting corporation, filed a complaint
against respondent PMSI alleging that the latters unauthorized
rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23 infringed on its broadcasting
rights and copyright. PMSI posits that it was granted a franchise to
operate a digital direct-to-home satellite service and that the
rebroadcasting was in accordance with the NTC memo to carry
television signals of authorized television broadcast stations, which
includes petitioners programs. The IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs found
PMSI to have infringed petitioners broadcasting rights and ordered it
to permanently desist from rebroadcasting. On appeal, the IPO
Director General found for PMSI. CA affirmed.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners broadcasting rights and copyright are
infringed.
Ruling: NO.
The Director-General of the IPO correctly found that PMSI is not
engaged in rebroadcasting and thus cannot be considered to have
infringed ABS-CBNs 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
International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers
of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, otherwise known as
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.
ABS-CBN creates and transmits its own signals; PMSI merely carries
such signals which the viewers receive in its unaltered form. 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 in accordance with Memorandum
Circular 04-08-88. With regard to its premium channels, it buys the
channels from content providers and transmits on an as-is basis to its
viewers. 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.

31. CASE DIGEST: Habana vs. Robles

PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N. FERNANDO
vs. FELICIDAD C. ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC.
G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999

FACTS: Pacita Habana et al., are authors and copyright owners of

duly issued of the book, College English For Today (CET). Respondent
Felicidad Robles was the author of the book Developing English
Proficiency (DEP). Petitioners found that several pages of the
respondent's book are similar, if not all together a copy of petitioners'
book. Habana et al. filed an action for damages and injunction,
alleging respondents infringement of copyrights, in violation of P.D.
49. They allege respondent Felicidad C. Robles being substantially
familiar with the contents of petitioners' works, and without securing
their permission, lifted, copied, plagiarized and/or transposed certain
portions of their book CET.

On the other hand, Robles contends that the book DEP is the product
of her own intellectual creation, and was not a copy of any existing
valid copyrighted book and that the similarities may be due to the
authors' exercise of the "right to fair use of copyrighted materials, as
guides."

The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, absolving them of any
liability. Later, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of
respondents Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. In this appeal,
petitioners submit that the appellate court erred in affirming the trial
court's decision.

Issue: Whether Robles committed infringement in the production of

DEP.

Held: A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP
that are similar if not identical with the text of CET. The court finds
that respondent Robles' act of lifting from the book of petitioners
substantial portions of discussions and examples, and her failure to
acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of petitioners'
copyrights.

In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles could have done
was to acknowledge petitioners Habana et. al. as the source of the
portions of DEP. The final product of an author's toil is her book. To
allow another to copy the book without appropriate acknowledgment
is injury enough.

32. NBI, Microsoft Corporation vs Judy Hwang | Uber Digests

ADVERTISEMENTS

460 SCRA 428 Mercantile Law Intellectual Property Law on

Copyright Copyright Infringement
In May 1993, Microsoft Corporation and Beltron Computer
Philippines, Inc. entered into a Licensing Agreement. Under Section
2(a) of the Agreement, Microsoft authorized Beltron, for a fee, to:
1. Reproduce and install no more than one copy of Windows on each
Customer System hard disk;
2. Distribute directly or indirectly and license copies of Windows
(reproduced as per Section 2 of the Agreement and/or acquired from
an Authorized Replicator or Authorized Distributor.
Their agreement allowed either party to terminate if one fails to
comply with their respective obligations. Microsoft terminated the
Agreement in June 1995 by reason of Beltrons non-payment of
royalties. Later, Microsoft learned that Beltron was illegally copying
and selling copies of Windows. Microsoft then sought the assistance of
the National Bureau of Investigation. NBI agents made some purchase
from Beltron where they acquired a computer unit pre-installed with
Windows, 12 windows installer CDs packed as Microsoft products. The
agents were not given the end-user license agreements, user manuals,
and certificates of authenticity for the products purchased. They were
given a receipt which has a header of T.M.T.C. (Phils) Inc. BELTRON
COMPUTER. TMTC stands for Taiwan Machinery Display and Trade
Center.
A search warrant was subsequently issued where 2,831 CDs of
Windows installers, among others, were seized. Based on the items
seized from Beltron, Microsoft filed a case of copyright infringement
against Beltron and TMTC as well as their officers (Judy Hwang et al)
before the Department of Justice (DOJ). Beltron, in its counter-
affidavit, argued the following:
1. That Microsofts issue with Beltron was really just to have leverage
in forcing Beltron to pay the unpaid royalties; and that Microsoft
should have filed a collection suit.
2. That the computer unit allegedly purchased by the NBI agents from
them cannot be decisively traced as coming from Beltron because the
receipt issued to the agents did not list the computer unit as one of the
items bought.
3. That the 12 installers purchased by the agents which are actually
listed in the receipt were not manufactured by Beltron but rather they
were genuine copies purchased by TMTC from an authorized
Microsoft seller in Singapore.
4. That the 2,831 installers seized from them were not a property of
Beltron but rather they were left to them by someone for safekeeping.
The DOJ secretary agreed with Beltron and dismissed the case. The
Secretary ruled that the issue of the authority of Beltron to copy and
sell Microsoft products should first be resolved in a civil suit.
Microsoft appealed the decision of the DOJ secretary before the
Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Beltron filed a motion to quash the search
warrant before the RTC that issued the same. The RTC partially
granted the quashal. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. Hwang et
al did not appeal the CA decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the DOJ Secretary is correct.
HELD: No. Section 5 of Presidential Decree 49 enumerates the rights
vested exclusively on the copyright owner. Contrary to the DOJs
ruling, the gravamen of copyright infringement is not merely the
unauthorized manufacturing of intellectual works but rather the
unauthorized performance of any of the acts covered by Section 5.
Hence, any person who performs any of the acts under Section 5
without obtaining the copyright owners prior consent renders himself
civilly and criminally liable for copyright infringement.
Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private domain owned
and occupied by the owner of the copyright, and, therefore, protected
by law, and infringement of copyright, or piracy, which is a
synonymous term in this connection, consists in the doing by any
person, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, of anything
the sole right to do which is conferred by statute on the owner of the
copyright.
Being the copyright and trademark owner of Microsoft software,
Microsoft acted well within its rights in filing the complaint before
DOJ on the incriminating evidence obtained from Beltron. Hence, it
was highly irregular for the DOJ to hold that Microsoft sought the
issuance of the search warrants and the filing of the complaint merely
to pressure Beltron to pay its overdue royalties to Microsoft.
There is no basis for the DOJ to rule that Microsoft must await a prior
resolution from the proper court of whether or not the Agreement is
still binding between the parties. Beltron has not filed any suit to
question Microsofts termination of the Agreement. Microsoft can
neither be expected nor compelled to wait until Beltron decides to sue
before Microsoft can seek remedies for violation of its intellectual
property rights.
Furthermore, the articles seized from Beltron are counterfeitper
se because Microsoft does not (and could not have authorized anyone
to) produce such CD installers The copying of the genuine Microsoft
software to produce these fake CDs and their distribution are illegal
even if the copier or distributor is a Microsoft licensee. As far as these
installer CD-ROMs are concerned, the Agreement (and the alleged
question on the validity of its termination) is immaterial to the
determination of Beltrons liability for copyright infringement and
unfair competition. Beltrons defense that the box of CD installers
found in their possession was only left to them for safekeeping is not
tenable.

33. Case Digest: Manly Sportswear Manufacturing, Inc vs. Dadodette

Enterprise
Manly Sportswear Manufacturing, Inc vs. Dadodette
Enterprise
G.R. No. 165306
September 20, 2005

FACTS:

On March 17, 2003, RTC- Quezon City, Branch 83 issued a

search warrant against Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports
Center after finding reasonable grounds that respondents violated
Sections 172 and 217 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8293. Respondents
then moved to quash and annul the search warrant claiming that the
sporting goods manufactured by and/or registered in the name
MANLY are ordinary hence, not among the classes protected under
Sec. 172 of RA 8293.
On June 10, 2003 the trial court granted the motion to quash and
declared the search warrant issued as null and void. MANLY filed a
motion for reconsideration on August 11, 2003, but was later on
denied for lack of merit.
After denial of the motion for reconsideration, MANLY filed a petition
for review of certiorari in the Court of Appeals but was later on denied.

ISSUE:

W/N the copyrighted products of MANLY are original

creations subject to the protection of RA 8293.
RULING:

No. The copyright certificates issued in favor of MANLY

constitute a prima facie evidence of validity and ownership. However,
presumption of validity is not created when a sufficient proof or
evidence exist that may cast a doubt on the copyright validity. In the
case at bar, validity and originality will not be presumed since the
copyrighted products of MANLY are not original creations considering
that these products are readily available in the market under various
brands. Moreover, no copyright accrues in favor of MANLY despite the
issuance of the copyright certificate this purely serves as a notice of
recording and registration of the work and is not a conclusive proof of
copyright ownership as provided in Sec. 2, Rule 7 of the Copyrights
Safeguards and Regulations.