INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

ATTY. ANTHONY B. PERALTA

Class: Attendance is mandatory and I expect you to be prepared to contribute to every class
discussion. Absence from 25% of classes or more will bar a student from taking the final
exam. Expect to be called at random.

Evaluation: 40% of the grade is based on a 2-hour final exam. 30% of the grade is based on
participation in class and the remaining 30% is based on quizzes/short writing
assignments.

Course Code : INTROPROP

Type of Course : Mandatory Elective Course
Credit : 2 units
Total Hours : 36 hours
Term/Time/Room : First Semester 2016-2017

I. Course Description

The Philippine government has long adhered to the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR). Consistent with
the country’s commitment to honor international treaties, covenants and agreements, the Philippines has
continued to promulgate laws, regulations and administrative procedures on IPR related matters aimed at ensuring
respect for IPR. With the promulgation of the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293), the Philippines
complied with its international undertakings and provided better protection for IPR.

This is a survey course covering the main areas of intellectual property law - patents, copyrights, trademarks, and
trade secrets. It introduces each subject and explores commonalities and differences among different systems of
intellectual property protection. It also gives an understanding of the philosophy and application of IP Law.

II. Course objectives

The course seeks to impart to the student skills, knowledge, attitudes and values in IP Law. These include:

1. Skills in the application of IP theory in order to be a competent lawyer, advocate, strategist and
administrator.
2. IP knowledge to appreciate conceptual and practical applications, government policy and business
transactions.
3. Attitudes to apply IP as a key to economic development in the Philippines.
4. Values on how to apply IP skills and knowledge positively to Philippine development.

III. Expected Outcome

At the end of the course, the student should:

1. Appreciate IP as an important tool for trade, economic and cultural development.
2. Appreciate the context in which IP, innovation and technology transfer operate.
3. Import appropriate attitudes and values as well as critical, creative, analytical and practical skills in IP, and
4. Acquire the ability to handle matters regarding IP, innovation and technology transfer.

Class 1 Source and Nature of Intellectual Property Rights

INTRODUCTION

1. OVERVIEW

Class 1 Philosophical Perspective

1
 What are the philosophical foundations for the protection of IP and how do they compare with
those for tangible property?

The Philosophy of Intellectual Property

John Hughes, 77 Georgetown Law Journal 287 (1988)

Natural Rights Perspective

John Locke, Two Treatises on Government
Third Edition, 1698

Personhood Perspective
Margaret Jane Radin, Property and Personhood
34 Stanford Law Review 957 (1982)

Prepare a Reaction Paper to the Philosophical Perspectives behind IPRs.

Class 2 Information as a Commodity

Of what value is the public domain and what information belongs there? What role should
property and contract law play in supporting the production and distribution of information in
the marketplace?

CONSTITUTION

Section 6 and 14 of Article XII

Sections 10-18 of Article XIV

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

A. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works as revised
in Brussels (Brussel Act)

B. Paris Convention for the protection of Industrial Property Rights (Paris

Convention).

C. International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of

Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (Rome Convention)

D. Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization

E. Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of

Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure

F. Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, Including trade

in Counterfeit Goods of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Articles 1-14, 40-
73.
Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)

G. Patent Cooperation Treaty

H. Madrid Protocol

Differences between copyright, trademarks and patent

Kho v. Court of Appeals, 379 SCRA 410 (2002)
2
 Pearl & Dean Phils. v. Shoemart, 409 SCRA 231 (2003)
Ching v. Salinas, 462 SCRA 241 (2005)
Air Philippines v. Pennswell, Inc., 540 SCRA 215 (2007)

Class 3 Quiz No. 1; Patent History, Patentability

2. LAW ON PATENTS

2.1 Legislative History

2.1.1 Republic Act No. 165
2.1.2 Republic Act No. 8293 (“IPC”)
Sec. 239.1, IPC
Sec. 235.1, IPC
Sec. 236.1, IPC
2.1.3 R.A. No. 9502 (Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008)
(Amended IPC)

2.2 Definition of Patentable Invention (Sec. 21)

2.2.1 Product
2.2.2 Process
2.2.3 Improvement
Aguas v. De Leon 111 SCRA 238 (1982)
2.2.4 Combination

2.3 Purpose
Manzano v. CA, 278 SCRA 688
Pearl & Dean v. Shoemart, 409 SCRA 231 (2003)

2.4 What are patentable?

2.4.1 Inventions
Section 21, IPC

Standards:
a. Novelty
Sections 23-25, IPC
In re Hall 781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
Maguan v. CA, 146 SCRA 10
Rosaire v. National Land Co. 218 F.2d 72, 349 U.S. 916 (1955)
Frank v. Kosuyama, 59 Phil 206
Vargas v. Chua, 57 Phil 206
Vargas v. F.M. Yaptico & Co., 40 Phil 195
City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Company 97 U.S. 126 (1877)
Griffith v. Kanamaru 816 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1987)

b. Inventiveness
Section 26, IPC, as amended by RA No. 9502
(Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008)
Aguas v. de Leon, 111 SCRA 238
Graham v. John Deere Co. 383 U.S. 1 (1966)
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. 550 U.S. 398 (2007)
In re Kubin 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

3
 c. Industrial Application
Section 27, IPC
Brenner v. Manson 383 U.S. 519 (1966)
In re Fisher 421 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir 2005)
Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc. 185 F. 3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999)

d. Enablement/Sufficient Disclosure (Sec. 35)

The Incandescent Lamp Patent 159 US 465 (1895)
The Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. The Berkline Corp. 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

2.4.2 Utility Model

Sections 109.1, IPC
Definition/Criteria (Sec. 21, 109.1 (a) and (b)
Samson v. Tarroza 28 SCRA 792 (1969)
Duration/Renewal of Protection (Sec. 109.2)
Ong Shia Kong v. Director of Patents 58 Phil 68 (1974)
Infringement
Del Rosario v. CA and Jacinto Corp. 255 SCRA 152 (1996)

2.4.3 Industrial Designs

Sections 112, 113, 119.1, IPC

2.5 What are not patentable?

Section 22, IPC, as amended by RA No. 9502 (Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality
Medicines Act of 2008)
Compositions of Matter
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 100 S. Ct. 2204
Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K. Mulford Co. 189 F. 95 (CCSDNY 1911)
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 569 .S. (2013)
Abstract Ideas
Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010)
Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) 4 S.C.R 45, 2002 SCC
State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group149 F.3d 1368
Secs. 8-9, RA 165
Sec. 74, RA 165
Article 27, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS)
Plant Variety Protection Act, Republic Act No. 9168
Sections 32 and 34 of the IPRA Law (RA 8371)

2.6 Ownership of Patent

Inventor, Section 28, IPC
First-to-File, Section 29, IPC
One who commissions the work, Section 30, IPC
Sections 67-70. IPC
Section 236, IPC
Employer, Employee
Assignees (Sec. 104)
Joint Owners (Secs. 104 and 107)

Class 4 Patent Application; Procedure for Grant of a Patent

2.8 Regular Application for Patent

2.7.1 Who may apply?
4
 Sections 28-30, IPC
Section 68, IPC
Section 3, IPC
Section 231, IPC
Section 235, IPC

2.7.2 Application
Section 32-37, IPC
Section 38, IPC
Section 39, IPC
Section 8, IPC
Sections 108, 109.2, IPC (Utility Models)
Section 114-115, IPC (Industrial Design)

2.7.3 Priority Date

Section 31, IPC
Boothe v. Director of Patents, 95 SCRA 446
Requirements:
Extent of protection and interpretation of Claims (Sec. 75)

2.7.4 Filing Date

Sections 40-41, IPC
Section 116, IPC (Industrial Design)

2.7.5 Formality Examination

Section 42, IPC

2.7.6 Classification and Search

Section 43, IPC

2.7.7 Confidentiality before Publication

Section 45, IPC

2.7.8 Publication of Patent Application

Section 44, IPC

2.7.9 Rights Conferred by a Patent Application

After Publication
Section 46, IPC

2.7.10 Observation by Third Parties

Section 47, IPC

2.7.11 Request for Substantive Examination

Section 48, IPC
Schwartz v. CA, 335 SCRA 493 (2000)
E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Co. vs. Director Emma C. Francisco, et. al.,
G.R. No. 174379, 26 October 2016

2.7.12 Amendment
Section 49, IPC

2.7.13 Conversion
Sections 110 and 111, IPC

5
 2.8 Philippine Rules on PCT Applications (Pursuant to Patent Cooperation Treaty ratified by the Senate
on 5 February 2001, PCT took effect for the Philippines on 17 August 2001)

2.9 Issuance or Refusal of Patents

Section 50, IPC
Section 51, IPC
Section 53, IPC
Sections 117 and 119, IPC (Industrial Design)

2.10 Publication upon grant of Patents

Section 52, IPC

2.11 Term of Patent

Section 54, IPC (Invention Patent)
Section 109.3, IPC (Utility Model)
Section 118, IPC (Industrial Design)
Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc. and Pfizer (Phils.), Inc.,
G.R. No. 167715, 17 November 2010
2.12 Annual Fees
Section 55, IPC

2.13 Surrender, Correction and Amendment

Section 56, IPC
Sections 57-60, IPC

Class 5 Cancellation; Rights of Patentee; Licensing

2.14 Petition for Cancellation of Patent or Claim

1. Grounds [Sec. 61, 67.1 (d), 68]
Cresser Precision Systems v. CA Supra.
Section 61, IPC
Section 82, IPC
Section 109.4, IPC (Utility Model)
Section 120, IPC (Industrial Design)

2. Proceedings
Sections 62-66, IPC
Section 230, IPC

3. Effects of Cancellation (Sec. 66)

Termination of Rights
Immediately Executory Pending Appeal
Damages (Sec. 68)

2.15 Rights of Patentee

1. Section 71, IPC
Parke Davis & Co. v. Doctor’s Pharmaceuticals, 124 SCRA 115
Cresser Precision Systems v. CA 286 SCRA 13 (1998)

Limitations on the Rights of a Patentee:

Sec. 72, IPC as amended by RA No. 9502
(Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008)
Secs. 73-74, IPC
Sec. 231, IPC
The Issue of Parallel Importation
Section 71, IPC
6
 Article 6 of the TRIPS Agreement: The Doctrine of Exhaustion
Roma Drug v. RTC of Guagua 585 SCRA 140 (2009)
Prior User, Section 73
Use by Government, Sec. 74

2. Action for Infringement (Literal and Equivalent)

Vargas v. F.M. Yaptico, supra
Frank v. Benito, 51 Phil. 712
Frank v. Kosuyama, 59 Phil. 206
Doctrine of Mechanical Equivalents
G. Sell v. Yap Jue, 12 Phil. 519
Maguan v. CA, 146 SCRA 107 (1986)
Doctrine of Equivalents
Godines v. CA, 226 SCRA 338
Del Rosario v. CA, 255 SCRA 152
SmithKline Beckman Corp. v. CA, 409 SCRA 33 (2003)
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd. 535 US 722 (2002)
Johnson & Johnson v. R.E. Service Co., Inc. 285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

Standards for Construing Claims

Phillips v. AWH Corporation 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Larami Corporation v. Amron 27 U.S.P.Q.2d 1280 (E.D. Pa. 1993)

Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC)

a. Civil Action for Infringement

Section 76, IPC, as amended by RA No. 9502
(Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008)
Section 75, IPC
Parke Davis & Co. v. Doctor’s Pharmaceuticals 104 SCRA 700 (1981)
Sanctions
Contributory Infringer (nature of liability) (Sec. 76.6)
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 911 F.2d 670
(Fed. Cir. 1990)
NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd. 418 F. 3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Jurisdiction (Sections 67, 68, 69, 76, 82, and 84.)
b. Criminal Action for Repetition of Infringement
Section 84, IPC

c. Administrative
Section 10.2, IPC

d. Who can file?

Section 77, IPC
Creaser Precision System, Inc. v. CA, 286 SCRA 13

e Presumptions
Section 78, IPC

f. Damages
Secs. 79-80, IPC

Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc. 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978)

g. Defenses in Action for Infringement

Section 81, IPC
7
 Experimental Use Defense
Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co. 733 F.2d 858;
469 U.S. 856 (1984)
Inequitable Conduct
Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. V. Hollister, Inc. 863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir.
1988)
Exhaustion of Patent Rights
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. 128 S. Ct. 2109 (2008)
Patent Misuse
Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company,
et. al. 243 U.S. 502 (1917)

h. Patent found invalid may be cancelled

Section 82, IPC

i. Assessors
Section 83, IPC

j. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Philippine Parmawealth, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. 635 SCRA 140 (2010)

3. Licensing
a. Voluntary
Sections 83, IPC

b. Compulsory
Sections 93-95, IPC, as amended by RA No. 9502
(Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008)
Sections 96-102, IPC
Prince v. United Laboratories, 166 SCRA 133 (1988) The Director of Patents may
fix the terms and conditions of the compulsory license if the parties cannot agree
on them.
Smith Kline v. CA, 276 SCRA 224 (1997)
Smith Kline v. CA, 368 SCRA 9 (2001)

4. Right to Transfer and Assign

Section 4.2, IPC
Sections 103-107, IPC
Sections 85-92, IPC
Albana v. Director of Patents, 93 Phil. 113

Class 6 Quiz No. 4; Patent Drafting

2.16 Patent Drafting Basics

2.17 Patent Application Exercise

3.1 Introduction to Copyrights

Class 7 Copyright

3 COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS

3.1 Subject Matter

Section 241, Intellectual property Code (“IPC”)
Section 239.3, IPC
8
 Section 236, IPC

3.2 Definition of Copyright

Section 177, IPC
Rule 2, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations
Rules 11-12, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations

3.3 Standard for Copyright Protection

Section 172.1, IPC
Section 172.2, IPC
Ching Kian Chuan v. CA, 363 SCRA 142 (2001)
Sambar v. Levi Strauss, 378 SCRA 364 (2002)

3.4 When does Copyright vest?

Santos v. McCullough Printing Co., 12 SCRA 321 (1964)
Filipino Society of Composers v. Benjamin Tan, 148 SCRA 461 (1987)
Sec. 2, PD 49
Article 5(2), Berne convention for the Protection of Literacy and Artistic Works
Section 172 and 172.2, IPC
Rule 7, Sections 2-4, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations
Baker v. Selden 101 U.S. 99 (1978)
Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International 526 U.S. 233 (1996)
Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble 379 F.2d 675 (1967)
Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co. 834 F.2d 1142 (2d Cir. 1987)
Manly Sportswear Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Dadodette Enterprises 470 SCRA 364 (2005)

3.5 Scope of Copyright

Article 2, Berne convention for the Protection of Literacy and Artistic and Artistic Works
Sections 172, 172.2, 173.2, 174, IPC
Section 175, IPC
Section 176, IPC
Joaquin v. Drilon, 302 SCRA 225 (1999)
United Features Syndicate v. Munsingwear, 179 SCRA 260 (1989)
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Service Co., 499 U.S. 340
Jessie Ching vs. William Salinas 462 SCRA 241 (2005)
ABSCBN Corp. vs. Felipe Gozon, et. al. G.R. No. 195196 (March 11, 2015)

3.6 Who owns Copyright?

Sec. 178 9and its subparagraphs), Sec. 179, Sec. 174, IPC
Article 722 and 723, Civil Code
Article 520 of the Civil Code
Community for Creative Non-Violence , et. al. v. Reid 490 U.S. 730 (1989)
Aalmuhammed v. Lee 202 F. 2d 1227 (2000)
Arnstein v. Porter 154 F. 2d 464 (1940)
Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation 45 F2d 119 (1930)
Computer Associates International v. ALTAI, Inc. 982 F. 2d 693 (1992)
Anderson v. Stallone 11 USPQ 2d 1161 (1989)
Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. 464 US 417 (1984)

3.7 Duration of Copyright

Articles 7 and 7bis, Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
Sec. 213 (and its subparagraphs), Sec. 214, IPC

Class 11 Right to Make Copies; Infringement

3.7 Right to Make Copies

9
 Sections 176 (and its subparagraphs), 171.11, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, IPC
Sec 189, IPC
Sec. 190, IPC
Rule 14, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations
Filipino Society of Composers v. Benjamin Tan, 148 SCRA 461 (1987)
Philippine Education Co. v. Sotto, 52 Phil. 580
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises 471 US 539 (1989)
Ann Bartow, Educational Fair Use in Copyright: Reclaiming the Right to Photocopy Freely, 60
University of Pittsburg Law Review, 149 (1998)
American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc. 60 F.3d 913 (1994)
Campbell v. Acuff-Row Music, Inc. 510 US 569 (1994)
Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd. 448 F.3d 605 (2006)
Blanch v. Koons 467 F. 3d 244 (2006)
Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Acolade, Inc. 977 F. 2d 1510 (1992)

In The Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, Etc., Against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del
Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC. October 12, 2010.
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.

3.8 Transfer of Copyright

Sections 180 (and its subparagraphs), 181, 182, 183, IPC
Sections 4.2 in relation to Sections 87 and 88, IPC
Section 92, IPC
Section 237, IPC

3.9 Deposit of copyrightable materials

Sections 191-192, IPC
Sections 227-229, IPC
Rule 5, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations

3.10 Infringement
Definition
Remedies
Sections 221-224, IPC
Sec. 3, IPC
Sections 10.2, IPC
Sections 216-220, IPC
Sections 225-226, IPC
Sec. 231, IPC
Rule on Search and Seizure in Civil Actions for Infringement of Intellectual
Property Rights (A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC)
20th Century Fox v. CA, 164 SCRA 655 (1988)
Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 144 (1996)
People v. Ramos, 83 SCRA 1 (1978)
Serrano Laktaw v. Paglinawan, 44 Phil. 855
Habana v. Robles, 310 SCRA 511 (1999)
Joaquin v. Drilon, 302 SCRA 225 (1999)
Pearl & Dean v. Shoemart, 409 SCRA 231 (2003)
MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U.S. 913 (2005)
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 487 F. 3d 711 (2007)
Sheldon v. Metro Goldwyn Pictures Corp. 309 US 390 (1940)
ABSCBN Corp. vs. Felipe Gozon, et. al. G.R. No. 195196, March 11, 2015

Class 12 Moral rights; Follow Up Rights; Neighboring Rights

10
 3.11 Moral Rights
Article 6bis, Berne Convention for the protection of Literary and Artistic Works
Sections 193-199, IPC

3.12 Right to Proceeds in Subsequent Transfers (Droit De Suite or Follow Up Rights)

Sections 200-201, IPC

3.13 Neighboring Rights

Sec. 202, IPC
Sec. 212, IPC
a. Rights of Performers
Sections 203-207, IPC
Sec. 215, IPC

b. Rights of Procedures of Sound Recording

Sections 208-210, IPC
Sec. 215, IPC

c. Rights of Broadcasting Organizations

Sections 211, IPC
Sec. 215.2, IPC
ABS-CBN Broadcasting vs. Philippine Multi-Media System, G.R. Nos. 175769-70,
January 19, 2009.

3.14 P.D. No. 285

Sec. 239, IPC

3.15 R.A. No. 9239 (Optical Media Act) and the Optical Media Board Rules of Procedure

3.16 R.A. 10088 (The Anti-Cam Cording Act of 2010)

Class 13 Quiz No . 2; Registrability of Trademarks; Procedure

4 LAW ON TRADEMARKS, TRADENAMES AND SERVICE MARKS

4.1 Definition of Trademarks

Section 121.1, IPC
Distelleria Washington v. CA, 263 SCRA 303

4.2 Functions of Trademarks

Ang v. Teodoro, 74 Phil 50
Etepha v. Director of Patents, 16 SCRA 495
Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 516 (1999)

4.3 How are Marks Acquired?

Section 122, IPC
Contrast this with Sec. 2-A of Republic Act No. 166 and cases decided under RA 166:
Unno Commercial Enterprises v. General Milling Corp., 120 SCRA 904
Kabushi Kaisha Isetan v. IAC, 203 SCRA 583
Philip Morris v. CA, 224 SCRA 576
Philip Morris v. Fortune Tobacco, GR No. 158589, 27 June 2006
Shangrila v. DCCI, GR No. 159938, 31 March 2006
Shangrila v DCCI, Gr No. 159938, 22 January 2007
11
 Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. Vs. Norvy Abyadang G.R. No. 183404, 13 October 2010)
E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc. and Engracio Yap vs. Shendar Electricity and Machinery Co. Ltd.
G.R. No. 184850 (20 October 2010)
Ecole de Cuisine Manille (Cordon Bleu of the Philippines), Inc. vs. Renaud Cointreau & Cie
and Le Cordon Bleu Int’l. B.V. No. 185830 (15 June 2013)
Birkenstock Orthopaedie GmbH vs. Philippine Shoe Expo Marketing Corporation G.R. No.
194307 (November 20, 2013)

Standard for Registrability

Distinctiveness
a. Classification of Marks and Requirements for Protection
Zatarain’s, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc.
b. Distinctiveness of Trade Dress and Product Confirmation
Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. 698 F2d 786 (1983)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. 529 U.S. 205 (2000)

4.4 What Marks May Be Registered?

Sec 123 (and its sub-paragraph), IPC
Etepha v. Director of Patents, 16 SCRA 495
Baxter v. Zuasua, 5 Phil 160
Compania Gral de Tabacco v. Alhambra Cigar, 33 Phil 485
Ang v. Teodoro, 74 Phil 50
Arce Sons v. Selecta Biscuits, 1 SCRA 253
Kabushi Kaisha Isetan v. IAC, 203 SCRA 583
Asia Brewery v. CA, 224 SCRA 437 (1993)
Emerald Garment Manufacturing v. CA, 251 SCRA 600
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. 514 U.S. 159 (1995)
Christian Louboutin, S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Amercia Holdings, Inc. 778 F. Supp. 2d 448. (2012)
Fredco Manufacturing Corporation vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard
University) G.R. No. 185917 (June 1, 2011)
Shang Properties Realty Corp. vs. St. Francis Development Corp. G.R. No. 190706, 21 July 2014

4.5 Application for Registration

Application
Sec. 123, IPC
Sections 124 (and its sub-paragraphs), 125, 126, 128, 130 (and its sub-
paragraphs), IPC
Sec. 124.2, IPC
Sec. 131 (and its sub-paragraphs), IPC
(Claim of Priority Date)
Zazu Designs v. L’Oreal, S.A. 979 F. 2d 499 (1992)
Sec. 239.2, IPC

Assignment of Application Number and Filing Date

Sec. 127, IPC
Sec. 132.2, IPC

Examination
Sec. 133 (and its sub-paragraphs), IPC
Sec. 126, IPC
Sec. 129, IPC

Publication
Sec. 133.2, IPC

Opposition
12
 Sections 134 and 135, IPC
Bata Industries v. CA, 114 SCRA 318
Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 516 (1999)
Park ‘N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc. 469 U.S. 189 (1985)
Taiwan Kolin Corporation vs. Kolin Electronics G.R. No. 209843 (March 25, 2015)

Issuance and Publication of Certificate

Sections 136 and 137, IPC
Sec. 138, IPC
Sec. 139, IPC
Sec. 144 (and its sub-paragraphs), IPC
Sec. 4.2, IPC

Duration of Certificate
Sec. 145, IPC

Voluntary Cancellation of Certificate

Sec. 140, IPC

Correction of Mistakes
Sections 142 and 143, IPC

Renewal
Sec. 146 (and Its sub-paragraphs), IPC

Class 14 Rights Conferred; Remedies: Administrative Action; IPV Violations

4.6 Rights Conferred

Sec. 147 (and Its sub-paragraphs), IPC as amended by RA No. 9502 (Universally Accessible Cheaper
and Quality Medicines Act of 2008)
Sec 148, IPC
Section 4.2 in relation to Sections 87 and 88, 92, IPC
Sec. 149 (and its sub-paragraphs), IPC
Sec. 150 (and its sub-paragraphs), IPC
Sec. 231, IPC

4.8 Infringement
1. Use as a Trademark
Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc. 562 F. 3d 123 (2009)

2. Likelihood of Confusion
AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats 599 F. 2d 341 (1979)

3. Dilution
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC 507 F. 3d 252 (2007)
Tiffany (NJ), Inc. v. eBay, Inc. 600 F. 3d 93 (2010)

4. Is there infringement even if the goods are non-competing?

And Tibay v. Teodoro, 84 Phil 50
Chua Che v. Philippine Patent Office, 13 SCRA 67 (1965).
Sta. Ana v. Maliwat, 24 SCRA 108
Philippine Refining Company v. Ng Sam, 115 SCRA 472
Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. CA, 116 SCRA 387
Faberge v. IAC, 215 SCRA 316
Canon Kabushiki v. CA, 116 336 SCRA 266 (2000)
Pearl & Dean v. Shoemart, 409 SCRA 231 (2003)
13
 246 Corporation v. Daway, 416 SCRA 315 (2003)
Societe Des Produits Nestle v. CA, 356 SCRA 207 (2001)
Levi Strauss v. Clinton Apparelle, GR No. 138900, 20 September 2005

5. Domain Names and Cybersquatting

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney 263 F. 3d 359 (2001)
Lamparella v. Falwell 420 F. 3d 309 (2005)

6. False Advertising
Johnson & Johnson, Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals Co.
v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. 960 F. 2d 294 (1992)
Section 20, RA 166 as compared to Sec. 138, IPC
Issue of Parallel Importation:
Yu v. CA, 217 SCRA 328

4.9 Remedies
Sec. 3, IPC
Sec. 160, IPC
Sec. 231, IPC
Leviton Industries v. Salvador, 114 SCRA 420
Puma v. IAC, 158 SCRA 233
La Chemise Lacoste v. Fernandez, 129 SCRA 373
The Murphy Door Bed Co., Inc. v. Interior Sleep Systems, Inc. 874 F. 2d 95 (1989)
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. 532 U.S. 23 (2001)
Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Sed Non Olet Denarius, Ltd. 817 F. Supp. 1103 (1993)
Dawn Donut Company, Inc. v. Heart’s Food Stores, Inc. 267 F. 2d 358 (1959)
KP Permanent Make-up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression, Inc. 548 U.S. 111 (2004)
Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records 296 F. 3d 894
Lindy Pen Company, Inc. v. Bic Pen Corporation 982 F. 2d 1400 (1993)
Big O’Tire Dealers, Inc. v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company 561 F. 2d 1365 (1977)

Administrative Action
a) Cancellation of Proceedings
Sec. 151 (and its sub-paragraphs), IPC
Sec. 152 (and its sub-paragraphs), IPC
Sections 153 and 154, IPC
Sec. 230, IPC
Sec. 232.2, IPC
Romero v. Maiden Form, 10 SCRA 556
Philippine Nut Industry v. Standard Brands Inc., 65 SCRA 575
Anchor Trading co. v. Director of Patents, 99 Phil. 1040
Clorox Company v. Director of Patents, 20 SCRA 965 (1967)
Wolverine Worldwide, Inc. v. CA, 169 SCRA 627 (1989)
Shangri-La v. CA, 359 SCRA 273 (1999)
Superior Commercial Enterprises vs. Kennan Enterprises Ltd., GR No. 169974,
April 20, 2010

b) Intellectual Property Rights Violations

Sec. 10(2) (and its sub-paragraphs), IPC
Sec. 232, IPC
Sec. 232.2, IPC
IN-N-OUT Burger vs. Sehwani G.R. No. 179127 (December 24, 2008)
Prohibition of Importation
Sec. 166, IPC

Class 15 Civil Action; Criminal Action; Tradenames; Collective Marks

14
 Civil Action
a) Infringement
Secs. 155-164, IPC
Sec. 232, IPC
Rules on Search and Seizure in Civil Actions for Infringement of Intellectual Property
Rights (A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC)
Etepha A.G. v. Director of Patents, 16 SCRA 495 (1966)
Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. CA, 116 SCRA 338
Fruit of the Loom v. CA, 133 SCRA 405 (1984)
Del Monte Corp. v. CA, 181 SCRA 410
Asia Brewery v. CA, 224 SCRA 437
Conrad v. CA, 246 SCRA 691
Emerald Garment Manufacturing v. CA, 251 SCRA 600
Amigo v. Cluett Peabody, 354 SCRA 434 (2001)
Societe Des Produits Nestle v. CA, 356 SCRA 207 (2001)
Mighty Corporation v. E.J. Gallo Winery, 434 SCRA 473 (2007)
McDonald’s Corp. v. L.C. Big Mak, 437 SCRA 10 (2004)
McDonald’s Corp. v. Macjoy Fastfood Corp., 514 SCRA 95 (2007)
Skechers vs. Inter Pacific Trading G.R. No. 164321 28 March 2911)

b) Unfair Competition
Sec. 168, IPC
Sec. 232, IPC
Difference between infringement and Unfair Competition
Del Monte Corporation v. CA, 181 SCRA 410
Pro Line Sports Center v. CA, 281 SCRA 162
Universal Rubber Products v. CA, 130 SCRA 162
Converse Rubber Corp. v. Jacinto Rubber and Plastic Co., 97 SCRA 158
Asia Brewery v. CA, 224 SCRA 437 (1993)
Solid Triangle v. Sheriff, 370 SCRA 491 (2001)
Sony Computer v. Supergreen, Inc., GR No. 161823, 22 March 2007
Sehwani, Inc. and Benita’s Frites, Inc. vs. IN-N-OUT Burger, Inc., 536 SCRA 255 (2007)
Coca Cola v. Gomez, GR No. 154491, November 14, 2008
Superior Commercial Enterprises v. Kunnan Enterprises Ltd., GR No. 169974.
April 20, 2010

c) Action for False or Fraudulent Declaration

Sec. 162, IPC
Sec. 163, IPC
Sec. 164, IPC
Sec. 232, IPC

d) Action for False Designation of Origin

Sec. 169 (and its sub-paragraphs), IP code
Sec. 232, IPC
Chester Uyco, et. al. vs. Vicente Lo G.R. No. 202423 (28 January 2013)

Criminal Action
Sec. 170, IPC
Sy v. Court of Appeals, 113 SCRA 334
Samson v. Judge Daway, GR Nos. 160054-55, July 21, 2004
William C. Yao, Sr. vs. The People of the Philippines, GR No. 168306. June 19, 2007

4.10 TRADENAMES
1. Definition
15
 Sec. 121.3, IPC
Converse Rubber Corporation v. Universal Rubber Products, 117 SCRA 154

2. What may not be used as a Tradename?

Sec. 165.1, IPC

3. Rights of the Tradename owner

Secs. 165.2, IPC
Sec. 165.3, IPC
Sec. 165.4, IPC
Philips Export v. CA, 206 SCRA 457
Armco Steel Corporation v. SEC, 156 SCRA 822
Western Equipments & Supply Co. v. Reyes, 51 Phil 115

4.11 COLLECTIVE MARKS

1. Definition
Sec. 121.2, IPC

2. Section 167 (and its sub-paragraphs), IPC

Class 16 Other Intellectual Property

5.1 Trade Secrets

5.2 Geographical Indicators
5.3 Plant Varieties
5.4 Trademarks and the Internet

1. Domain Names
2. Cybersquatting and Domain Name Dispute Resolution

Research in Motion v. Georges Elias, Case No. D2009-0218, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation
Center (http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0218.html)

3. Meta-Tags and Cyberstuffing

Class 17

6.1 Special Rules for IP Courts

6.2 Catch Up and Review Outline

Class 18 Final Exams

16