ELIDAD C. KHO, doing business under the name and style of KEC COSMETICS enterprise.

enterprise. Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic

LABORATORY, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SUMMERVILLE works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain
GENERAL MERCHANDISING and COMPANY, and ANG TIAM protected from the moment of their creation. Patentable inventions, on the other
CHAY, respondents. [G.R. No. 115758. March 19, 2002] 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.
Facts:
Petitioner Kho filed a complaint for injunction and damages with a prayer for the Petitioner has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use of the subject trade
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against respondents Summerville General name and its container. The name and container of a beauty cream product are proper
Merchandising and Company and Ang Tiam Chay, 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
Petitioner alleges in her complaint: product, the user must sufficiently prove that she registered or used it before anybody
1. That she is doing business under the name and style of KEC Cosmetics else did. The petitioner’s copyright and patent registration of the name and container
Laboratory, would not guarantee her the right to the exclusive use of the same for the reason that
2. Is the registered owner of the copyrights “CHIN CHUN SU” and “OVAL FACIAL they are not appropriate subjects of the said intellectual rights. Consequently, a
CREAM CONTAINER/CASE,” and preliminary injunction order cannot be issued for the reason that the petitioner has
3. That she has the patent rights on “CHIN CHUN SU & DEVICE” and “CHIN not proven that she has a clear right over the said name and container to the exclusion
CHUN SU” for medicated cream after purchasing the same from Quintin of others, not having proven that she has registered a trademark thereto or used the
Cheng (who was the registered owner then in a Supplemental Register) same before anyone did.
4. That Summerville advertised and sold petitioner’s cream products under the
same brand name, in similar containers that petitioner uses (thereby Additional: (not really on copyright/patent but a lil bit related)
misleading the public and resulting in the decline in the petitioner’s business
sales and income) The SC cannot likewise overlook the decision of the trial court in the case for final
5. That respondents should be enjoined from allegedly infringing on the injunction and damages. The dispositive portion of said decision held that the
copyrights and patents of the petitioner petitioner does not have trademark rights on the name and container of the beauty
cream product. The said decision on the merits of the trial court rendered the issuance
As a response, respondent alleged that it is the exclusive and authorized importer, of the writ of a preliminary injunction moot and academic notwithstanding the fact
re-packer and distributor of the Chin Chun Su products which were manufactured by that the same has been appealed in the Court of Appeals. This is supported by our
Shun Yi Factory (which authorized Summerville to register its trade name Chin Chun ruling in La Vista Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, to wit:
Su Medicated Cream with the PPO) and that Quintin Cheng’s right to distribute had “Considering that preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy which may
already been terminated by Shun Yi. be granted at any time after the commencement of the action
and before judgment when it is established that the plaintiff is
The preliminary injunction was then granted to which the respondents filed an MR. entitled to the relief demanded and only when his complaint
(MR denied.) Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, praying for shows facts entitling such reliefs xxx and it appearing that the
the nullification of the injunction. The CA ruled in favor of the respondents, stating trial court had already granted the issuance of a final injunction
that the registration of the brandname in the supplemental register cannot be equated in favor of petitioner in its decision rendered after trial on the
with the registration in the principal register. Petitioner filed an MR. merits xxx the Court resolved to Dismiss the instant petition
having been rendered moot and academic. An injunction issued
In the meantime, the trial court went on to hear petitioners complaint for final by the trial court after it has already made a clear
injunction and damages. It rendered a decision barring the petitioner from using the pronouncement as to the plaintiffs right thereto, that is, after
trademark Chin Chun Su and upholding the right of the respondents to use the same, the same issue has been decided on the merits, the trial court
but recognizing the copyright of the petitioner over the oval shaped container of her having appreciated the evidence presented, is proper,
beauty cream. CA denied petitioner’s MR and motion for contempt of court. notwithstanding the fact that the decision rendered is not yet
final xxx. Being an ancillary remedy, the proceedings for
Issue: whether the copyright and patent over the name and container of a beauty preliminary injunction cannot stand separately or proceed
cream product would entitle the registrant to the use and ownership over the same independently of the decision rendered on the merit of the main
to the exclusion of others? – No, copyright and patent over the same does not case for injunction. The merit of the main case having been
guarantee exclusive use, since copyright and trademark are different from each other. already determined in favor of the applicant, the preliminary
determination of its non-existence ceases to have any force and
Ruling: effect. (italics supplied)”
La Vista categorically pronounced that the issuance of a final injunction renders any
Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot question on the preliminary injunctive order moot and academic despite the fact that
be interchanged with one another. A trademark is any visible sign capable of the decision granting a final injunction is pending appeal. Conversely, a decision
distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and denying the applicant-plaintiffs right to a final injunction, although appealed, renders
shall include a stamped or marked container of goods.In relation thereto, a trade moot and academic any objection to the prior dissolution of a writ of preliminary
name means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an injunction.