Elidad C. Kho (doing business under the name and style of KEC COSMETICS LABORATORY) vs. Hon.

Court of Appeals, Summerville General Merchandising and Company, and Ang Tiam Chay
G.R. No. 115758, March 19, 2002

J. De Leon, Jr., ponente

 Elidad Kho (Kho) filed a complaint for injunction and damages with a prayer for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction against Summerville General Merchandising Company
(Summerville), and Ang Tiam Chay.
 Kho alleged the following claims:
o That KEC Cosmetics Laboratory (KEC) is the registered owner of the copyrights Chin Cun
Su and Oval Facial Cream Container/Case;
o That she also has patent rights on Chin Chun Su & Device and Chin Chun Su medicated
cream after purchasing the same from Quintin Cheng (the registered owner of said
patents;
o That Summerville advertised and sold Kho’s cream products under the brand name Chin
Chun Su in similar containers which misled the public, resulting to decline of petitioner’s
sales and income.
 Summerville and Ang Tiam Chay alleged the following defenses:
o That Summerville is the exclusive and authorized importer, repacker, and distributor of
Chin Chun Su products manufactured by Shun Yi Factory of Taiwan;
o That the said Taiwanese manufacturing company authorized Summerville to register its
trade name Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream with the Philippine Patent Office and other
appropriate government agencies;
o That KEC Cosmetics Laboratory obtained copyrights through misrepresentation and
falsification;
o That the authority of Quintin Cheng to distribute and market Chin Chun Su products in
the Philippines had already been terminated by the said Taiwanese manufacturing
company.

Issue(s)/Ruling
1. Whether or not the copyright and patent over the name and container of a beauty cream
product would entitle the registrant to the use and ownership over the same to the exclusion of
others. NO.
Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot be interchanged
with one another. A trademark is any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or
services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods. In
relation thereto, a trade name means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an
enterprise. Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which are
original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their
creation. Patentable inventions, on the other hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in any
field of human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable.

Kho has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use of the subject trade name and its container.
The name and container of a beauty cream product are proper subjects of a trademark inasmuch as the
same falls squarely within its definition. In order to be entitled to exclusively use the same in the sale of
the beauty cream product, the user must sufficiently prove that she registered or used it before anybody
else did. The petitioners’ copyright and patent registration of the name and container would not
guarantee her right to the exclusive use of the same for the reason that they are not appropriate
subjects of said intellectual rights.

Wilson Ong Ching Kian Chuan vs. Court of Appeals and Lorenzo Tan
G.R. No. 130360, August 15, 2001

J. Quisumbing, ponente
 Wilson Ong Ching Kian Chuan (Ong), imports vermicelli from China National Cereals Oils and
Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation, based in Beijing, China, under the firm name C.K.C.
Trading. He repacks it in cellophane wrappers with a design of two-dragons and the TOWER
trademark on the uppermost portion. Ong acquired a Certificate of Copyright Registration from
the National Library on June 9, 1993 on the said design.
 Ong discovered that private respondent Lorenzo Tan repacked his vermicelli he imports from the
same company but based in Qingdao, China in a nearly identical wrapper. Ong alleged that he
was the holder of a Certificate of Copyright Registration over the cellophane wrapper with the
two-dragon design, and that Tan used an identical wrapper in his business.  In his prayer for a
preliminary injunction in addition to damages, he asked that Tan be restrained from using the
wrapper. 
 The trial court issued a temporary restraining order on the same date the complaint was filed.
The following are the defenses of Tan:
o Ong did not have a clear right over the use of the trademark Pagoda and
Lungkow vermicelli as these were registered in the name of CHINA NATIONAL CEREALS
OIL AND FOODSTUFFS IMPORT AND EXPORT CORPORATION, SHANDONG CEREALS AND
OILS BRANCH (hereafter Ceroilfood Shandong), based in Qingdao, China. 
o Tan averred that he was the exclusive distributor in the Philippines of the Pagoda and
Lungkow vermicelli and was solely authorized to use said trademark. 
o That Ong merely copied the two-dragon design from Ceroilfood Shandong which had
the Certificates of Registration issued by different countries. He concluded that Ong’s
Certificate of Copyright Registration was not valid for lack of originality.
 The Regional Trial Court granted the writ of preliminary injunction. When Tan elevated the case
to the Court of Appeals via certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of
preliminary injunction, the CA set aside the RTC’s grant of preliminary injunction.

Issue(s)/Ruling
1. Was it proper for the CA to have set aside the grant of preliminary injunction? YES.
A person to be entitled to a copyright must be the original creator of the work. He must have created it
by his own skill, labor and judgment without directly copying or evasively imitating the work of another .
The grant of preliminary injunction in a case rests on the sound discretion of the court with the caveat
that it should be made with extreme caution. Its grant depends chiefly on the extent of doubt on the
validity of the copyright, existence of infringement, and the damages sustained by such infringement . In
our view, the copies of the certificates of copyright registered in the name of Ceroilfood Shandong
sufficiently raise reasonable doubt. With such a doubt, the preliminary injunction is unavailing.  To be
entitled to an injunctive writ, petitioner must show, inter alia, the existence of a clear and unmistakable
right and an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. From the above
discussion, we find that petitioner’s right has not been clearly and unmistakably demonstrated. In the
absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by the plaintiff, an order of the trial court
granting the issuance of an injunctive writ will be set aside, for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion