Scribd
Upload
91 views3 pages

Copyright Only

This document provides an overview of intellectual property law in the Philippines. It begins with an introduction to relevant civil code articles and the different types of intellectual property. The document then discusses the key differences between copyrights, patents, and trademarks. The bulk of the document focuses on copyright law, outlining what qualifies as an original work, the idea-expression dichotomy, and whether a work is considered art or utility. It also examines copyright ownership, limitations, neighboring rights, fair use, and key related statutes.

Uploaded by

Janina C Abarquez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
91 views3 pages

Copyright Only

This document provides an overview of intellectual property law in the Philippines. It begins with an introduction to relevant civil code articles and the different types of intellectual property. The document then discusses the key differences between copyrights, patents, and trademarks. The bulk of the document focuses on copyright law, outlining what qualifies as an original work, the idea-expression dichotomy, and whether a work is considered art or utility. It also examines copyright ownership, limitations, neighboring rights, fair use, and key related statutes.

Uploaded by

Janina C Abarquez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

Jay-r C. Ipac1

I. Introduction
1. Civil Code Art. 712, 721-724
2. Different kinds of Intellectual Property

II. Preliminaries

a. Differences between the 3 basic IP rights


1. Kho v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 115758, March 19, 2002
2. Fernando Juan v. Roberto Juan GR No. 221372, August 23 2017

III. IP RIGHTS
Copyright (Part IV, RA No. 8293 as amended by RA No. 10372)

a. Original
1. Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 249 (1903)
2. Serrano v. Paglinawan, G.R. No. L-11937, April 1, 1918
3. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
4. Chuan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130360. August 15, 2001
5. Sambar v. Levi Strauss, G.R. No. 132604. March 6, 2002
6. Manly Sportswear v. Dadodette Enterprises, G.R. No. 165306, September 20,
2005
7. Unilever v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119280 August 10, 2006

b. Idea v. Expression
1. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879)
2. Serrano v. Paglinawan, G.R. No. L-11937, April 1, 1918
3. Joaquin v. Drilon, G.R. No. 108946. January 28, 1999
4. Bikram's Yoga College of India v. Evolation Yoga 803 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015)
5. Republic v Tupaz, G.R. No. 197335, September 07, 2020

c. Art and Utility


1. Mazer v. Stein 347 US 201 (1954)
2. Brandir International v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co834 F.2d 1142 (1987)
3. Olano v. Eng Co, G .R. No. 195835, March 14 2016
4. Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., March 22, 2017 (US Supreme
Court)

1
LL.M. Information Technology Law and Intellectual Property Law, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom, with
Distinction; Chevening scholar; Partner, DivinaLaw; Author, Information Technology, Law, and Policy 2023 edition,
Central Bookstore
d. Versus other rights
1. Pearl and Dean v. Shoemart, G.R. No. 148222, August 15, 2003
2. Ching v. Salinas, G.R. No. 161295, June 29, 2005

e. Ownership
1. Derivative Works
a. Alva Studio v. Winninger, 177 F. Supp. 265 (S.D.N.Y. 1959)
b. Toksvig v. Bruce Publishing, 181 F.2d 664 (7th Cir. 1950)
c. Nichols v. Universal Picture, 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930)
d. Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U.S. 55 (1911)

2. Assignment
a. Bayanihan Music v. BMG Records, G.R. No. 166337, March 7, 2005

3. Joint Work
a. Thomson v. Larson, 147 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 1998)

4. Government work
a. In The Matter Of The Charges Of Plagiarism, Etc., Against Associate
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-Sc, February 8, 2011 (See
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio)

f. Limitations of Copyright
1. Rappler v. Bautista, G.R. No. 222702, April 5, 2016
2. Pabillo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 216098, April 21, 2015

g. Neighboring Rights
1. Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers v. Tan, G.R. No. L-
36402 March 16, 1987
2. United Feature Syndicate v. Munsingwear, G.R. No. 76193 November 9, 1989
3. Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers v. Anrey Inc., G.R. No.
233918. August 9, 2022

h. Fair Use Infringement and


1. Harper & Row v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985)
2. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)
3. Columbia Pictures v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 96597-99 October 6, 1994
4. Columbia Pictures v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110318. August 28, 1996
5. Habana v. Robles, G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999
6. Microsoft v. Maxicorp, G.R. No. 140946, September 13, 2004
7. NBI Microsoft Corporation v. Hwang, G.R. No. 147043, June 21, 2005
8. ABS-CBN v. Philippine Multi Media, G.R. No. 175769-70, January 19, 2009
9. ABS-CBN v. Gozon, G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015
Related laws:
RA No. 9239 Optical Media Act of 2003
RA No. 10088 Anti-Camcording Act of 2010

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy