I. A distinctive-tasting pastillas is well-known throughout the country as having been developed within a close-knit women's group in Barangay San Ysmael which is located along a very busy national highway. Its popularity has encouraged the setting up of several shops selling similar delicacies, with the most famous product being the pastillas of "Barangay San Ysmael." Eventually, the pastillas of Aling Yoling under the brand name "Ysmaellas" began to attract national distinction. Aling Yoling therefore registered it as a copyright with the National Library. Her neighbor, Aling Yasmin, realizing the commercial value of the brand, started using the term "Ysmaellas" for her pastillas but used different colors. Aling Yasmin registered the brand name "Ysmaellas" with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). 1. Can Aling Yoling successfully obtain court relief to prohibit Aling Yasmin from using the brand name "Ysmaellas" in her products on the basis of her (Aling Yoling's) copyright? The distinction between copyright and trademark is important because they protect different forms of intellectual property. Copyright covers original works of authorship, while trademark covers names, symbols, or designs used to distinguish the goods or services of a particular business. In this case, Aling Yoling cannot use copyright law to prevent Aling Yasmin from using the brand name "Ysmaellas" because trademarks are the proper legal framework for protecting brand names or marks. Unlike copyright, trademark registration is necessary for legal protection and enforcement. In essence, copyright and trademark law have distinct subject matters and requirements for protection, and proper registration is essential to enforce intellectual property rights. 2. What is the difference between registration as a copyright and registration as a trade or brand name? Copyright registration legally registers an original work of authorship, such as a book, painting, or song. Copyright protection gives the owner exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, and create derivative works based on the original creation. Copyright registration is not required for copyright protection, but it provides several benefits, including evidence of ownership and the ability to sue for copyright infringement in court. On the other hand, registering a trade or brand name involves securing the exclusive right to use a particular name, symbol, or design to identify and distinguish goods or services in the marketplace. This registration protects the trademark owner against unauthorized use by others in the same industry or market. Registering a trademark is essential for any business that wants to protect its brand identity, reputation, and goodwill. In summary, copyright registration protects original works of authorship, while trademark registration protects brand names, symbols, and designs used to distinguish goods or services in the marketplace. Both roles provide the owner with legal protection and exclusive rights but have different requirements and benefits. 3. Can Aling Yasmin seek injunctive relief against Aling Yoling from using the brand name “Ysmaellas,” the latter relying on the doctrine of “prior use” as evidenced by her prior copyright registration? Aling Yasmien has the right to stop Aling Yoling from using the "Ysmaellas" brand name, as per the prior use doctrine. This doctrine states that the first person or business to use a particular brand or trade name in commerce is considered the owner of that mark, regardless of whether they have registered it or not. Therefore, since Aling Yasmin was the first to use the "Ysmaellas" brand name in commerce, she is considered the owner of the mark. Trademark registration is not necessary for ownership but provides additional legal protections and enforcement mechanisms. In this case, ownership of the trademark confers the right to register, not the other way around. Although registration provides evidence of ownership, it does not grant ownership of the mark. Ultimately, the prior use of a brand or trade name in commerce determines the license and the legal right to prevent others from using the impact. 4. Can Aling Yoling seek the cancellation of Aling Yasmin’s trademark registration of the brand name “Ysmaellas” on the ground of “Well Known Brand” clearly evidenced by her (Aling Yoling’s) prior copyright registration, actual use of the brand, and several magazine coverages? According to Section 123 (E) of the Intellectual Property Code, the well-known mark rule only applies to trademarks recognized as famous internationally and in the Philippines. Therefore, Aling Yoling cannot seek the cancellation of Aling Yasmin's trademark registration for the brand name "Ysmaellas" because it is a well-known mark. However, Aling Yoling can still seek the cancellation of the trademark as a prior user, even if the mark is not famous. This means that if Aling Yoling can prove that she used the brand name "Ysmaellas" before Aling Yasmin, she may have grounds to cancel the trademark. It is important to note that while the well-known mark rule does not apply in this case, trademark law still protects prior users of trademarks, regardless of their level of recognition. II. Yason invented a method of improving the tenderness of meat by injecting an enzyme solution into the live animal shortly before a slaughter. Is the invention patentable? For an invention to be patentable, it must meet specific criteria, such as being new and valuable and falling within the categories of the machine, manufactured product, or process. It is important to note that methods not aimed at creating or improving a commercial product cannot be patented. The statement suggests that X's invention may be patentable since it is viewed as a helpful machine, manufactured product, or process that meets the requirement of being new and valuable. This means that X may have a legal right to claim ownership of his invention and exclude others from making, using, or selling it without his permission. However, it is essential to note that obtaining a patent involves thoroughly examining the invention to ensure it meets all legal requirements and does not infringe on existing patents or intellectual property rights. Therefore, even if X's invention is viewed as patentable from an overhead light, it is still subject to examination by the relevant authorities to determine its eligibility for a patent. III. Yuri invented a bogus coin detector which can be used exclusively on self-operation gambling devices otherwise known as one-armed bandits. Can Yuri apply for a patent? X may not apply for the patent since the gambling device mentioned in the problem itself is prohibited and against public order. But if the machine is used in legalized gambling such as in cases of exclusive use of casinos established by the government, such device can be patented. (BAR 1989) IV. Yeye applies for registration in his favor the trade name “Hokbu” for a hair dye on the ground that he has been using said tradename for almost 3 years before filing his application. Yuyu opposes the application on the ground that he has been using the trade name “Hokbu” with the same design for hair pomade which is registered in his name since 1963. Yeye replied that although the said trademark was registered in Yuyu’s name it was however, for a different article. Can Yeye’s application be sustained? Yeye has applied to register the trade name "Hokbu" for a hair dye, claiming that he used the term for almost three years before the application. However, Yuyu opposes the application, asserting that he has used the same trade name and design for a hair pomade registered in his name since 1963. Yeye argues that although Yuyu's trademark is registered, it is for a different product. Yeye's application to register the trade name "Hokbu" for a hair dye cannot be sustained in this situation. The reason is that Yuyu has already written the same trade name and design for hair pomade, giving him exclusive rights to use that trade name and method for that product. Even though Yuyu's trademark is registered for a different product, it still covers the same trade name and design. This means that Yeye's use of the same trade name and plan for a different outcome would need to be clarified for consumers and lead to trademark infringement. Therefore, Yeye's application for the trade name "Hokbu" for a hair dye cannot be approved, as it would infringe on Yuyu's exclusive rights to the trade name and design for hair pomade. V. Yayamanin, Inc., manufactures and markets after-shave lotion, shaving cream, deodorant, talcum powder and toilet soap, using the trademark “PRUT”, which is registered with the Philippine Patent Office. Yayamanin does not manufacture briefs and underwear and these items are not specified in the certificate of registration. Yagyagan who manufactures briefs and underwear, wants to know whether, under our laws, he can use and register the trademark “PRUTE” for his merchandise. What is your advice? Yayamanin, Inc. has a trademark for specific products, including after-shave lotion, shaving cream, deodorant, talcum powder, and toilet soap. The trademark certificate they issued outlines their trademark's limitations and only covers these products, excluding briefs and underwear. While briefs and underwear are products protected by Yayamanin's trademark, they are not covered by the registered trademark as specified in the certificate. Therefore, Yagyagan can register the trademark "PRUTE" for their briefs and underwear, as it will not infringe on Yayamanin's trademark rights. It's important to note that while Yayamanin has exclusive rights to use its trademark for the products covered by its registration, they do not have any rights over products outside the scope of its registration. As long as Yagyagan's use of the "PRUTE" trademark does not cause confusion or mislead consumers into thinking that it is affiliated with Yayamanin or their products, there should be no issue with the registration. VI. Yudi's painting of Madonna and Child was used by her mother to print some personalized gift wrapper. As part of her mother's efforts to raise funds for Bantay Binata, the mother of Yudi sold the wrapper to friends. Yari, an entrepeneur, liked the painting in the wrapper and made many copies and sold the same through International Bookstore. Can Yudi sue Yari for infringement? Yes, Yudi can sue Yari for copyright infringement. Copyright is the exclusive right granted to the creator of an original work to control the reproduction, distribution, and display. Yudi's painting is considered an original work and is automatically protected by copyright upon creation. The use of Yudi's painting without her permission by Yari to make copies and sell them constitutes copyright infringement. Even though Yudi's mother used the artwork for a fundraiser, it does not give anyone else the right to use the painting for commercial purposes without the copyright owner's permission, which is Yudi in this case. Therefore, Yudi can file a lawsuit against Yari for copyright infringement, seeking damages and injunction to prevent the further breach. VII. Read ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon, G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015. copyrightable? Explain. Is news In ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon, G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015, the Supreme Court of the Philippines held that news is not copyrightable. The Court noted that news is a product of journalistic skill and judgment. Still, it is not considered an original intellectual creation in the same sense as literary or artistic works. News is typically a factual account of events or developments, presented straightforwardly and objectively and is not usually considered a work of creative expression. While the manner of news presentation may be protected by copyright (e.g., the specific words used, the arrangement and sequence of information), the factual content of the news itself is not considered an original work subject to copyright protection. The Court explained that allowing copyright protection for info would run counter to the purpose of copyright law, which is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by encouraging the creation of original works. Therefore, based on the ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon case, the news is not copyrightable. Still, the specific manner of presentation or expression of information may be subject to copyright protection.
