Ching v. Salinas Sr.

June 29, 2005 | Callejo, Sr., J

Doctrine: No copyright protection for works of applied art or industrial design which have aesthetic
or artistic features that cannot be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of the article.
Functional components of useful articles, no matter how artistically designed, have generally been
denied copyright protection unless they are separable from the useful article.

Case Summary: Ching is the maker and manufacturer of a Utility Model, described as “Leaf Spring
Eye Bushing for Automobile” with corresponding certificates of copyright registration as issued by
the National Library. Pursuant to these certificates, Ching sought the assistance of NBI to file search
warrants against illegal manufacturers of his work. A search warrant was issued against the
respondents but they filed a motion to quash contending that there was no probable cause for the
issuance of the search warrants as the subject matter of the alleged infringement was not artistic in
nature. RTC granted the motion to quash and was affirmed by CA. The Court affirms the decision
holding that the models are not covered by copyright as they are not artistic works within the meaning
of the law and hence not covered by copyright.

Facts:
 Jessie G. Ching is the owner and general manager of Jeshicris Manufacturing Co., maker and
manufacturer of a Utility Model, described as “Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile” made up of
plastic.
o Sep. 4, 2001, Ching and Joseph Yu were issued Certificates of Copyright Registration
and Deposit by the National Library for said work described therein.
 Sep 20, 2001, Ching requested NBI assistance for the apprehension and prosecution of illegal
manufacturers, producers and/or distributors of the works.
 After due investigation, NBI filed applications for search warrants in RTC Manila against William
Salinas, Sr. and the officers of Wilaware Product Corporation (Respondents). It alleged that the
respondents reproduced and distributed Leaf Spring eye bushing models that are liable for copyright
infringement under Sec. 177.1 and 177.3 of RA 8293.
o RTC granted the search warrant and NBI was able to seize articles/items related to the
utility model as based on the search warrants.
 Respondents filed a motion to quash the search warrants averring that the works covered by the
copyright certificates were issued in violation of the RA 8293 as they are not artistic in nature. Said
works are considered automotive spare parts and pertain to technology and as such are the proper
subject of a patent, not copyright.
 Ching in response averred that until his copyright was nullified in a proper proceeding, he enjoys the
rights of a registered owner/holder thereof.
 Trial Court granted the motion to quash finding that there was no probable cause for the issuance of
search warrants. It ruled that the work covered by the copyright certificates pertained to solutions to
technical problems, not literary and artistic as provided in Art. 172 of the RA 8293.
o Ching filed a petition to the CA contending that RTC had no jurisdiction to resolve the
validity of the copyright certificates.
o CA dismissed the petition holding that the law on copyright protects literary or artistic
works, and its derivative works to which the utility model falls on neither.
 On appeal to the SC via a petition for review on certiorari, Ching claims that the RA 8293 provides no
uncertain terms that copyright protection automatically attaches to a work by the sole fact of its
creation, irrespective of its mode or form of expression, as well as of its quality or purpose.
o Also according to Ching, the law gives a non-inclusive definition of “work” as referring
to original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the
moment of their creation; and includes original ornamental designs or models for articles
of manufacture, whether or not registrable as an industrial design and other works of
applied art under Section 172.1(h) of R.A. No. 8293.

Issue: W/N the utility models can be considered as artistic works and are therefore validly protected by
copyright? – NO

Ruling:
 The Court first clarifies that RTC has jurisdiction to resolve the issue whether Ching’s utility models
are subject of a valid copyright in order to determine if probable cause existed that would allow for the
issuance of a search warrant for the crime of infringement.
 A copyright certificate provides prima facie evidence of originality which is one element of copyright
validity. But said certificate creates no rebuttable presumption of copyright validity where other
evidence on the record casts doubt. In such a case, validity will not be presumed.
 Based from Ching’s copyright certificates, the covered work falls under Sec. 172.1(h) which includes,
“Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not registrable as an
industrial design, and other works of applied art”.
o Related to above provision is Sec. 171.10 which provides that a “work of applied art is an
artistic creation with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article, whether
made by hand or produced in an industrial scale”
o But based from the specifications appended to Ching’s copyright certificates only
provides for the components of the model. 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.
 The focus of copyright is the usefulness of the artistic design and not its marketability, with the central
question being whether the article is a work of art. Works for applied art include all original pictorials,
graphics, and sculptural works that are intended to be or have been embodied in useful article
regardless of factors such as mass production, commercial exploitation, and the potential availability
of design patent protection.
o Indeed, while works of applied art, original intellectual, literary and artistic works are
copyrightable, useful articles and works of industrial design are not. 35 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.
 Court agrees with Ching’s contention that under 171.10 of RA 8293, the author’s intellectual creation,
regardless of whether it is a creation with utilitarian function or incorporated in a useful article
produced on an industrial scale in protected by copyright.
o However, the law refers to a "work of applied art which is an artistic creation." It bears
stressing that there is no copyright protection for works of applied art or industrial
design which have aesthetic or artistic features that cannot be identified separately
from the utilitarian aspects of the article. Functional components of useful articles,
 no matter how artistically designed, have generally been denied copyright
protection unless they are separable from the useful article.
 In the present case, Ching’s models are not works of applied art not artistic works. They are utility
models, useful articles with no artistic design or value.
o A utility model is a technical solution to a problem in any field of human activity which
is new and industrially applicable. It may be, or may relate to, a product, or process, or an
improvement of any of the aforesaid. Essentially, a utility model refers to an invention in
the mechanical field.

Disposition: Court denies petition for lack of merit.

Notes:
1.