PMAP v.

FPA Intellectual Property Right; There is no encroachment upon the powers of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) granted under R.A. No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Section 5 thereof enumerates the functions of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Nowhere in said provision does it state nor can it be inferred that the law intended the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to have the exclusive authority to protect or promote intellectual property rights in the Philippines. There is no encroachment upon the powers of the IPO granted under R.A. No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Section 5 thereof enumerates the functions of the IPO. Nowhere in said provision does it state nor can it be inferred that the law intended the IPO to have the exclusive authority to protect or promote intellectual property rights in the Philippines. On the contrary, paragraph (g) of said Section even provides that the IPO shall [c]oordinate with other government agencies and the private sector efforts to formulate and implement plans and policies to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights in the country. Clearly, R.A. No. 8293 recognizes that efforts to fully protect intellectual property rights cannot be undertaken by the IPO alone. Other agencies dealing with intellectual property rights are, therefore, not precluded from issuing policies, guidelines and regulations to give protection to such rights. Definition of IP Sec. 4 RA 10055 (a)"Intellectual Property (IP)" is the term used to describe intangible assets resulting from the creative work of an individual or organization. IP also refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images and designs used in commerce. (b)"Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs)" refer to those rights recognized and protected in Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the "Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines". RA 8293 Section 3. International Conventions and Reciprocity. - Any person who is a national or who is domiciled or has a real and effective industrial establishment in a country which is a party to any convention, treaty or agreement relating to intellectual property rights or the repression of unfair competition, to which the Philippines is also a party, or extends reciprocal rights to nationals of the Philippines by law, shall be entitled to benefits to the extent necessary to give effect to any provision of such convention, treaty or reciprocal law, in addition to the rights to which any owner of an Section 231. Reverse Reciprocity of Foreign Laws. - Any condition, restriction, limitation, diminution, requirement, penalty or any similar burden imposed by the law of a foreign country on a Philippine national seeking protection of intellectual property rights in that country, shall reciprocally be enforceable upon nationals of said country, within Philippine jurisdiction. Intellectual property right is otherwise entitled by this Act. Kho v. CA Intellectual Property Law; Trademarks and Trade Names; Copyrights; Patents; Words and Phrases; Trademark, Copyright, and Patent, Explained and Distinguished; Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot be interchanged with one another.Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot be interchanged with one another. A trademark is any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods. In relation thereto, a trade name means the name or designation

identifying or distinguishing an enterprise. Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation. Patentable inventions, on the other hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable. Same; Same; Same; Same; The name and container of a beauty cream product are proper subjects of a trademark, and a partys copyright and patent registration of the name and container would not guarantee him or her the right to the exclusive use of the same for the reason that they are not appropriate subjects of the said intellectual rights.Petitioner has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use of the subject trade name and its container. The name and container of a beauty cream product are proper subjects of a trademark inasmuch as the same falls squarely within its definition. In order to be entitled to exclusively use the same in the sale of the beauty cream product, the user must sufficiently prove that she registered or used it before anybody else did. The petitioners copyright and patent registration of the name and container would not guarantee her the right to the exclusive use of the same for the reason that they are not appropriate subjects of the said intellectual rights. Consequently, a preliminary injunction order cannot be issued for the reason that the petitioner has not proven that she has a clear right over the said name and container to the exclusion of others, not having proven that she has registered a trademark thereto or used the same before anyone did. Ching v. Salinas Intellectual Property; Copyright Law; The focus of copyright is the usefulness of the artistic design and not its marketability.It bears stressing that the focus of copyright is the usefulness of the artistic design, and not its marketability. The central inquiry is 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. Same; Same; While works of applied art, original intellectual, literary and artistic works are copyrightable, useful articles and works of industrial design are not. As gleaned from the description of the models and their objectives, these articles are useful articles which are defined as one having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. Indeed, while works of applied art, original intellectual, literary and artistic works are copyrightable, useful articles and works of industrial design are not. 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. Same; Same; That the works of the petitioner may be the proper subject of a patent does not entitle him to the issuance of a search warrant for violation of copyright laws.That the works of the petitioner may be the proper subject of a patent does not entitle him to the issuance of a search warrant for violation of copyright laws. In Kho v. Court of Appeals and Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated v. Shoemart, Incorporated, the Court ruled that these copyright and patent rights are completely distinct and separate from one another, and the protection afforded by one cannot be used interchangeably to cover items or works that exclusively pertain to the others. Air Philippines v. Pennswell Intellectual Property Law; Trade Secrets; Words and Phrases; A trade secret is defined as a plan or process, tool, mechanism or compound known only to its owner and those

of his employees to whom it is necessary to confide it, which definition also extends to a secret formula or process not patented, but known only to certain individuals using it in compounding some article of trade having a commercial value. A trade secret is defined as a plan or process, tool, mechanism or compound known only to its owner and those of his employees to whom it is necessary to confide it. The definition also extends to a secret formula or process not patented, but known only to certain individuals using it in compounding some article of trade having a commercial value. A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information that: (1) is used in ones business; and (2) gives the employer an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not possess the information. Generally, a trade secret is a process or device intended for continuous use in the operation of the business, for example, a machine or formula, but can be a price list or catalogue or specialized customer list. It is indubitable that trade secrets constitute proprietary rights. The inventor, discoverer, or possessor of a trade secret or similar innovation has rights therein which may be treated as property, and ordinarily an injunction will be granted to prevent the disclosure of the trade secret by one who obtained the information in confidence or through a confidential relationship. American jurisprudence has utilized the following factors to determine if an information is a trade secret, to wit: (1) the extent to which the information is known outside of the employers business; (2) the extent to which the information is known by employees and others involved in the business; (3) the extent of measures taken by the employer to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information to the employer and to competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by the company in developing the information; and (6) the extent to which the information could be easily or readily obtained through an independent source. Same; Same; Any determination by management as to the confidential nature of technologies, processes, formulae, or other so-called trade secrets must have a substantial factual basis which can pass judicial scrutiny; The parameters in the determination of trade secrets are such substantial factual basis that can withstand judicial scrutiny.In Cocoland Development Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 259 SCRA 51 (1996), the issue was the legality of an employees termination on the ground of unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets. The Court laid down the rule that any determination by management as to the confidential nature of technologies, processes, formulae or other so-called trade secrets must have a substantial factual basis which can pass judicial scrutiny. The Court rejected the employers naked contention that its own determination as to what constitutes a trade secret should be binding and conclusive upon the NLRC. As a caveat, the Court said that to rule otherwise would be to permit an employer to label almost anything a trade secret, and thereby create a weapon with which he/it may arbitrarily dismiss an employee on the pretext that the latter somehow disclosed a trade secret, even if in fact there be none at all to speak of. Hence, in Cocoland, the parameters in the determination of trade secrets were set to be such substantial factual basis that can withstand judicial scrutiny. Samson v. Daway Repeal of repugnant provisions of Republic Act No. 166 Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act [R.A.] 8293); Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction over cases for infringement of registered marks, unfair competition, false designation of origin and false description or representation, is lodged with the Regional Trial Court.Under Section 170 of R.A. No. 8293, which took effect on January 1, 1998, the criminal penalty for infringement of registered marks, unfair competition, false designation of origin and false description or representation, is imprisonment from 2 to 5 years and a fine ranging from Fifty Thousand Pesos to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, to wit: SEC. 170. Penalties.Independent of the civil and administrative sanctions imposed by law, a criminal penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years to

five (5) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos(P200,000.00), shall be imposed on any person who is found guilty of committing any of the acts mentioned in Section 155 [Infringement], Section 168 [Unfair Competition] and Section 169.1 [False Designation of Origin and False Description or Representation]. Corollarily, Section 163 of the same Code states that actions (including criminal and civil) under Sections 150, 155, 164, 166, 167, 168 and 169 shall be brought before the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under existing laws, thusSEC. 163. Jurisdiction of Court.All actions under Sections 150, 155, 164 and 166 to 169 shall be brought before the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under existing laws. (Emphasis supplied) The existing law referred to in the foregoing provision is Section 27 of R.A. No. 166 (The Trademark Law) which provides that jurisdiction over cases for infringement of registered marks, unfair competition, false designation of origin and false description or representation, is lodged with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) SEC. 27. Jurisdiction of Court of First Instance.All actions under this Chapter [V Infringement] and Chapters VI [Unfair Competition] and VII [False Designation of Origin and False Description or Representation], hereof shall be brought before the Court of First Instance. Same; Same; Statutes; Statutory Construction; Section 239 of R.A. No. 8293 did expressly repeal R.A. No. 166 in its entirety, otherwise, it would not have used the phrases parts of Acts and inconsistent here -withthe use of the phrases parts of Acts and inconsistent herewith only means that the repeal pertains only to provisions which are repugnant or not susceptible of harmonization with R.A. No. 8293.We find no merit in the claim of petitioner that R.A. No. 166 was expressly repealed by R.A. No. 8293. The repealing clause of R.A. No. 8293, readsSEC. 239. Repeals.239.1. All Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent herewith, more particularly Republic Act No. 165, as amended; Republic Act No. 166, as amended; and Articles 188 and 189 of the Revised Penal Code; Presidential Decree No. 49, including Presidential Decree No. 285, as amended, are hereby repealed. (Emphasis added) Notably, the aforequoted clause did not expressly repeal R.A. No. 166 in its entirety, otherwise, it would not have used the phrases parts of Acts and inconsistent herewith; and it would have simply stated Republic Act No. 165, as amended; Republic Act No. 166, as amended; and Articles 188 and 189 of the Revised Penal Code; Presidential Decree No. 49, including Presidential Decree No. 285, as amended are hereby repealed. It would have removed all doubts that said specific laws had been rendered without force and effect. The use of the phrases parts of Acts and inconsistent herewith only means that the repeal pertains only to provisions which are repugnant or not susceptible of harmonization with R.A. No. 8293. Section 27 of R.A. No. 166, however, is consistent and in harmony with Section 163 of R.A. No. 8293. Had R.A. No. 8293 intended to vest jurisdiction over violations of intellectual property rights with the Metropolitan Trial Courts, it would have expressly stated so under Section 163 thereof. Same; Same; Same; Same; R.A. No. 8293 and R.A. No. 166 are special laws conferring jurisdiction over violations of intellectual property rights to the Regional Trial Courts which should therefore prevail over R.A. No. 7691, which is a general law. The settled rule in statutory construction is that in case of conflict between a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail. Jurisdiction conferred by a special law to Regional Trial Courts must prevail over that granted by a general law to Municipal Trial Courts. In the case at bar, R.A. No. 8293 and R.A. No. 166 are special laws conferring jurisdiction over violations of intellectual property rights to the Regional Trial Court. They should therefore prevail over R.A. No. 7691, which is a general law. Hence, jurisdiction over the instant criminal case for unfair competition is properly lodged with the Regional Trial Court even if the penalty therefor is imprisonment of less than 6 years, or from 2 to 5 years and a fine ranging from P50,000.00 to P200,000.00.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The passing remark in Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 516 (1999), on the repeal of R.A. No. 166 by R.A. No. 8293 was merely a backgrounder to the enactment of the present Intellectual Property Code and cannot thus be construed as a jurisdictional pronouncement in cases for violation of intellectual property rights.The case of Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, invoked by petitioner finds no application in the present case. Nowhere in Mirpuri did we state that Section 27 of R.A. No. 166 was repealed by R.A. No. 8293. Neither did we make a categorical ruling therein that jurisdiction over cases for violation of intellectual property rights is lodged with the Municipal Trial Courts. The passing remark in Mirpuri on the repeal of R.A. No. 166 by R.A. No. 8293 was merely a backgrounder to the enactment of the present Intellectual Property Code and cannot thus be construed as a jurisdictional pronouncement in cases for violation of intellectual property rights.

Section 121. Definitions. - As used in Part III, the following terms have the following meanings: 121.1. "Mark" means any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods.