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 show’s format and style of
presentation. In 1991, BJPI’s president Francisco Joaquin saw on TV – RPN 9’s show It’s a Date, a show which is basically the same as Rhoda
and Me. He eventually sued Gabriel Zosa, the manager of the show It’s a Date. The investigating prosecutor found probable cause against
Zosa. Zosa later sought a review of the prosecutor’s 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 order of 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 BJPI’s 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 (It’s 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 latter’s 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 petitioner’s programs. The IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs found PMSI to have infringed
petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s 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-CBN’s 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 respondent’s
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 Beltron’s 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 counteraffidavit, argued the following:

1. That Microsoft’s 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 DOJ’s 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 owner’s 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 Microsoft’s 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 counterfeit per 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 Beltron’s liability for copyright infringement and unfair competition.
Beltron’s 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.