THE STUDENT AND THE LAW

the never ending journey of learning the law

HOME ABOUT CASE DIGESTS LAW SCHOOL TIPS LAW SCHOOL STORIES COMMENTARIES

Ching v. Salinas, Sr. (G.R. Search 

No. 161295)
CATEGORIES
 0 Comments Facts:
Select Category
Petitioner Ching is a maker and manufacturer of a utility
model, Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile, for
which he holds certificates of copyright registration.
BLOG STATS
Petitioner’s request to the NBI to apprehend and
112,243 hits
prosecute illegal manufacturers of his work led to the
issuance of search warrants against respondent
Salinas, alleged to be reproducing and distributing said
models in violation of the IP Code. Respondent moved Follow THE STUDENT AND THE LAW

to quash the warrants on the ground that petitioner’s

work is not artistic in nature and is a proper subject of a
patent, not copyright. Petitioner insists that the IP Code
protects a work from the moment of its creation FOLLOW BLOG VIA EMAIL

regardless of its nature or purpose. The trial court

Enter your email address to
quashed the warrants. Petitioner argues that the receive notifications of new
copyright certificates over the model are prima facie posts by email :)
evidence of its validity. CA affirmed the trial court’s
Enter your email address
decision.
Follow TSTL
Issues:

(1) Whether or not petitioner’s model is an artistic work

subject to copyright protection. THY FEEDBACK

Kindly rate this blog's

(2) Whether or not petitioner is entitled to copyright content:
protection on the basis of the certificates of registration
issued to it. Helpful.

Meh.
Ruling:
Not at all helpful.

(1) NO. As gleaned from the specifications appended to

the application for a copyright certificate filed by the
petitioner, the said Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for
Automobile and Vehicle Bearing Cushion are merely
View Results
utility models. As gleaned from the description of the Crowdsignal.com

models and their objectives, these articles are useful

articles which are defined as one having an intrinsic
utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the
appearance of the article or to convey information.
Plainly, these are not literary or artistic works. They are
not intellectual creations in the literary and artistic
domain, or works of applied art. They are certainly not
ornamental designs or one having decorative quality or
value. Indeed, while works of applied art, original
intellectual, literary and artistic works are
copyrightable, useful articles and works of industrial REPORT

design are not. A useful article may be copyrightable

only if and only to the extent that such design
incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features
that can be identified separately from, and are capable
of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of
the article. In this case, the bushing and cushion are not
works of art. They are, as the petitioner himself
admitted, utility models which may be the subject of a
patent.

(2) NO. No copyright granted by law can be said to

arise in favor of the petitioner despite the issuance of
the certificates of copyright registration and the deposit
of the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing
Cushion. Indeed, in Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon and Pearl &
Dean (Phil.), Incorporated v. Shoemart, Incorporated,
the Court ruled that:

Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is

purely a statutory right. It is a new or
independent right granted by the statute, and
not simply a pre-existing right regulated by it.
Being a statutory grant, the rights are only such
as the statute confers, and may be obtained
and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects
and by the persons, and on terms and
conditions specified in the statute. Accordingly,
it can cover only the works falling within the
statutory enumeration or description.

Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by proof

of originality and copyrightability. To discharge his
burden, the applicant may present the certificate of
registration covering the work or, in its absence, other
evidence. A copyright certificate provides prima facie
evidence of originality which is one element of
 copyright validity. It constitutes prima facie evidence of
both validity and ownership and the validity of the facts
stated in the certificate.

REPORT THIS AD

Share this:

     

Related

Manly Sportwear Kho v. CA (G.R. No. Sanrio Company

Manufacturing v. 115758) Limited v. Lim (G.R.
Dadodette No. 168662)
Enterprises (G.R.
No. 165306)

CHING V. SALINAS COPYRIGHT G.R. NO. 161295

PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE

PRIMA FACIE VALIDITY OF COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION

UTILITY MODEL WORKS OF APPLIED ART

← PREVIOUS NEXT →
Baker v. Selden (101 U.S. 99) ABS-CBN v. Philippine Multi-Media
System (G.R. No. 175769-70)

LEAVE A REPLY

Enter your comment here...

 
© 2019 THE STUDENT AND THE LAW
CREATE A FREE WEBSITE OR BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM.