Ching V Salinas Digest
August 26, 2022 | Author: Anonymous | Category: N/A
Short Description
Download Ching V Salinas Digest...
Description
CASE: ESSIE G. CHING , pettoner, vs. WILLIAM M. SALINAS, SR., WILLIAM M. SALINAS, JR., JOSEPHINE L. SALINAS, JENNIFER JENNIFER Y. SALINAS, ALONTO SOLAIMAN SALLE, JOHN ERIC I. SALINAS SALINAS,, NOEL M. YABUT
(Board of Direcors and Ocers of WILAWARE PRODUCT CORPORATION), respondens. DOCTRINE: While works of applied ar, original inellecual, lierary and artstc works are copyrighable,
useful artcles and works of indusrial design are no. FACTS:
Pett Petton oner er is he he owne ownerr an and d gene genera rall mana manage gerr of Jesi Jesich chri riss Ma Manu nufa facu curi ring ng Co Co., ., h he e maker maker an and d manufacurer manufacur er of utliy utliy model describe described d as “Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile” made up of plastc. In 2001, pettoner was issued by he Natonal Library Certcaes of Copyrigh Regisraton and Deposi of “Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Auomobile”. Weeks aer, pettoner requesed he NBI for investgaton and assisance for he apprehension and prosecuton of illegal manufacurers, producers, or disribuors of he works. NBI led applicaton for search warran in RTC agains he respondens for reproducing and disributng he said models penalized under Sectons 177.1 &177.3 of RA 8293. Applicatons sough he seizure of undeermined qualiy of leaf spring eye bushing for auomobile made up of plastc polypropylene and polyvi pol yvinyl nyl chlori chloride de plastc plastc,, among among oh ohers ers.. RTC grane graned d he applic applicato aton n for he sea search rch war warran ran. . Respondens now led a moton o quash he warran on he grounds:
Copyrigh regisratons were issued in violaton of IPC because he subjec maer was no an artstc or lierary piece
The subjec maer of he regisraton are spare pars of auomobiles so hey are no original
RTC: Graned he moton o quash led by he responden because here was no probable cause for is
issuance. The works covered by he certcaes issued o pettoners perained o echnical problems and no lierary and artstc as provided under Ar. 172 of IPC. CA: Armed he decision of he rial cour. There mus be a nding of specic oense ha mus have
been commied o justfy he issuance of search warran. The works proeced under he law on copyrigh copyr igh are lierary lierary and artstc works (Ar. 172) and derivatve derivatve works (Sec. 173). The leaf spring eye bushing and vehicle bearing cushion doesn’ fall on eiher classicatons.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT RTC was wrong when i declared ha his works are no copyrighable The word “work” has no inclusive deniton ha only refers o original inellecual creatons so i includes original ornamenal designs or models for artcles of manufacure Wha he Copyrigh Law proecs is he auhor's inellecual creaton, regardless of wheher i is one wih utliarian functons or incorporaed in a useful artcle produced on an indusrial scale.
Pettoner conends ha he has in his favor he bene of presumpton ha his copyrigh
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT Work Wo rk of h he e pett petton oner er is ess essenta entall lly y a echnical soluton o he problem of wear and ear in auomobiles A echnical soluton in any eld of human actviy which is novel may be he subjec of a paen, and no of a copyrigh. Under Sec 218.2 (b) of RA 8293, no copyrigh is said o exis if a pary caegorically questons is exisence and legaliy Copyrigh exiss only when he work is covered by he proecton of RA 8293
is valid so he burden of overurning he presumpton is upon he respondens
ISSUES:
1. Whehe Wheherr or no he RTC has jurisdi jurisdicton cton o resolve resolve he issue issue if he utli utliy y models ar are e copyrig copyrighabl hable? e? YES
2. Whehe Wheherr or no a copyrigh copyrigh certcae certcae of regisrato regisraton n is prima facie facie evid evidence ence of original originaliy? iy? YES 3. Wheher or no Leaf Spring eye bushing for auomobile is proeced under he copyrigh law? NO
Sec ton 172.1 (a) of RA 8293 ha is 4. Wheher or no leaf spring is included in he cachphrase under Secton subjec o copyrigh? NO RULING:
1. The RTC had ju jurisdi risdicton cton o delve delve ino and and resolve resolve he issue wh wheher eher he pe pettoner ttoner's 's utliy utliy model modelss are copyrighable and, if so, wheher he is he owner of a copyrigh over he said models . The RTC is mandated under the Constuon and Rules of Criminal Procedure to determine probable cause. The court court cannot cannot abdi abdicat cate e its constu constuon onal al obliga obligaon on by ref refusin using g to det determ ermine ine whe whethe therr an oense has been commied. The pettoner mus demonsrae he exisence and he validiy of his
copyrigh because in he absence of copyrigh proecton, even original creaton may be freely copied. By requestng he NBI o investgae and, if feasible, le an applicaton for a search warran for infringemen under R.A. No. 8293 agains he respondens, he pettoner hereby auhorized he RTC (in resolving he applicaton), o delve ino and deermine he validiy of he copyrigh which he claimed he had over he utliy models. The peoner cannot seek relief from the RTC based on his claim that he was the copyright owner over the ulity models and, at the same me, repudiate the court's jurisdicon to ascertain the validity of his claim without running afoul to the doctrine of estoppel.
2. A cop copyri yright ght cerc cercate ate provide providess pri prima ma facie facie evi eviden dence ce of origina originalit lity y whic which h is one eleme element nt of copyright copyri ght validity. validity. I constues prima facie e vidence of both validity and ownership and the validity of the facts stated in the cercate. The applicant should not ordinarily be forced, in he
rs insance, o prove all he multple facs ha underline he validiy of he copyrigh unless the respondent, eecvely challenging them, shis the burden of doing so to the applicant . Tha is wha’s provided under Secton 218.2 of R.A. No. 8293. A certcae of regisraton creaes no rebuable presumpton of copyrigh validiy where oher evidence in he record cass doub on he queston. In such a case, validiy will no be presumed. 3. Looking a he applicaton for a copyrigh certcae led by he pettoner, he said Leaf Spring Eye
Bushing for Auomobile is merely a utliy model. Likewise, he Vehicle Bearing Cushion is illusraed as a bearing cushion comprising a generally semi-circular body having a cenral hole o secure a conventonal bearing and a pluraliy of ridges provided herefore, wih said cushion bearing being made of he same plastc maerials. Plainly, these are not literary or arsc works. They are not intellectual creaons in the literary and arsc domain, or works of applied art. They are certainly not ornamental designs or one having decorave quality or value
I bears sressing ha he focus of copyrigh is he usefulness of he artstc design, and no is markeabiliy. The cenral inquiry is wheher he artcle is a work of ar. While works of applied art, original intellectual, literary and arsc works are copyrightable, useful arcles and works of industrial design are not. A useful arcle may be copyrightable only if and only to the extent that such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be idened separately from, and are capable of exisng independently of the ulitarian aspects of the arcle. The law
refers o a "work of applied ar which is an artstc creaton." I bears sressing ha here is no copyrigh proecton for works of applied ar or indusrial design which have aeshetc or artstc feaures feaur es ha canno canno be ident idented ed separaely from he utliarian utliarian aspecs of he artcle. Functonal componens of useful artcles, no maer how artstcally designed, have generally been denied copyrigh proecton unless hey are separable from he useful artcle. In this case, the peoner's models are not works of applied art, nor arsc works. They are ulity models, useful arcles, albeit with no arsc design or value.
A utliy model is a echnical soluton o a problem in any eld of human actviy which is new and indusrially applicable. Essentally, a utliy model refers o an inventon in he mechanical eld. A utliy model varies from an inventon. Being plain auomotve spare pars ha mus conform o he original srucural design of he componens hey seek o replace, he Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion are no ornamenal. They lack he decoratve qualiy or value ha mus characerize auhentc works of applied ar. They are no even artstc creatons wih incidenal utliarian functons or works incorporaed in a useful artcle. In acualiy, he personal propertes described in he search warrans are mechanical works, he principal functon of which is utliy sans any aeshetc embellishmen.
4. Neih Neiher er are we o regard regard he Leaf Spring Spring Eye Eye Bushi Bushing ng and Vehicle Vehicle Bearing Bearing Cushion Cushion as iinclu ncluded ded in he cach-all phrase "oher lierary, scholarly, scientc and artstc works" in Secton 172.1(a) of R.A. No. 8293. Applying he principle of ejusdem generis which saes ha "where a saue describes hings of a partcular class or kind accompanied by words of a generic characer, he generic word will usually be limied o hings of a similar naure wih hose partcularly enumeraed, unless here be someh som ehin ing g in he conex conex of he sae whi which ch would would rep repel el suc such h inf inferen erence, ce,"" the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion are not copyrightable, being not of the same kind and nature as the works enumerated in Secon 172 of R.A. No. 8293. Tha he works of he pettoner may be
he proper subjec of a paen does no entle him o he issuance of a search warran for violaton of copyrigh laws. In he case of Kho, copyrigh and paen righs are compleely distnc and separae from one anoher, and he proecton aorded by one canno be used inerchangeably o cover iems or works ha exclusively perain o he ohers. In his case, he bushing and cushion are no works of ar. They are, as he pettoner himself admied, utliy models which may be he subjec of a paen.
DISPOSITIVE: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, he insan peon is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
CA decisions are AFFIRMED. Search Warran Nos. 01-2401 and 01-2402 issued on Ocober 15, 2001 are ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. Coss agains he pettoner.
View more...
Comments
