AIR PHILIPPINES VS PENNSWELL

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. 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 employer’s 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.

PEARL AND DEAN VS SHOEMART

The light boxes cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as either prints, pictorial illustrations,

advertising copies, labels, tags or box wraps, to be properly classified as a copyrightable; what was copyrighted

were the technical drawings only, and not the light boxes themselves. In other cases, it was held that there is no

copyright infringement when one who, without being authorized, uses a copyrighted architectural plan to

construct a structure. This is because the copyright does not extend to the structures themselves.

On the trademark infringement allegation, the words “Poster Ads” are a simple contraction of the generic term

poster advertising. In the absence of any convincing proof that “Poster Ads” has acquired a secondary meaning in

this jurisdiction, Pearl & Dean’s exclusive right to the use of “Poster Ads” is limited to what is written in its

certificate of registration, namely, stationeries.

CHING VS SALINAS

SEC. 172. Literary and Artistic Works. – 172.1. Literary and artistic works, hereinafter referred to as “works,” are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation and shall include in particular:

...

(h) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not registrable as an industrial design, and other works of applied art.

Related to the provision is Section 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 on an industrial scale.

But, as gleaned from the specifications appended to the application for a copyright certificate filed by the petitioner, the said Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile is merely a utility model described as comprising a generally cylindrical body having a co-axial bore that is centrally located and provided with a perpendicular flange on one of its ends and a cylindrical metal jacket surrounding the peripheral walls of said body, with the bushing made of plastic that is either polyvinyl chloride or polypropylene.[31] Likewise, the Vehicle Bearing Cushion is illustrated as a bearing cushion comprising a generally semi-circular body having a central hole to secure a conventional bearing and a plurality of ridges provided therefore, with said cushion bearing being made of the same plastic materials.[

KHO VS CA

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.[12] In relation thereto, a trade name means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise.[13] 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.[14] 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.[1

SAMSON VS DAWAY

The SC held that under Section 163 of the IPC, actions for unfair competition shall be brought before the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under existing laws. The law contemplatedin Section 163 of IPC is RA 166 otherwise known as the Trademark Law. Section 27 of theTrademark Law provides that jurisdiction over cases for infringement of registered marks, unfair competition, false designation of origin and false description or representation, is lodged with theCourt of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court). Since RA 7691 is a general law and IPC inrelation to Trademark Law is a special law, the latter shall prevail. Actions for unfair competitiontherefore should be filed with the RTC.

TAN VS BAUSCH AND LOMB

GUILTY OF CRIMINAL CASE ON TRADEMARKS.

DIAMOND VS CHAKRABARTY

In choosing such expansive terms as "manufacture" and "composition of matter," modified by the comprehensive "any," Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope.

Finding that Congress had intended patentable subject matter to "include anything under the sun that is made

by man," he concluded that:

Judged in this light, respondent's micro-organism plainly qualifies as patentable subject matter. His claim is ... to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter—a product of human ingenuity.

AGUAS VS DE LEON

Domiciano A. Aguas and F. H. Aquino and Sons alleging that being the original first and sole inventor of certain new and useful improvements in the process of making mosaic pre-cast tiles, he lawfully filed and prosecuted an application for Philippine patent, and having complied in all respects with the statute and the rules of the Philippine Patent Office, Patent No. 658

The respondent's improvement is indeed inventive and goes beyond the exercise of mechanical skill. He has introduced a new kind of tile for a new purpose. He has improved the old method of making tiles and pre-cast articles which were not satisfactory because of an intolerable number of breakages, especially if deep engravings are made on the tile. He has overcome the problem of producing decorative tiles with deep engraving, but with sufficient durability. 15 Durability inspite of the thinness and lightness of the tile, is assured, provided that a certain critical depth is maintained in relation to the dimensions of the tile. 16

The petitioner also claims that changing the design from embossed to engraved tiles is neither new nor inventive because the Machuca Tile Factory and the Pomona Tile Manufacturing Company have been manufacturing decorative wall tiles that are embossed as well as engraved; 17 that these tiles have also depth, lip width, easement and field of designs; 18 and that the private respondent had copied some designs of Pomona. 19

The Machuca tiles are different from that of the private respondent. The designs are embossed and not engraved as claimed by the petitioner. There may be depressions but these depressions are too shallow to be considered engraved. Besides, the Machuca tiles are heavy and massive.

There is no similarity between the Pomona Tiles and de Leon's tiles. The Pomona tiles are made of ceramics. 20The process involved in making cement tiles is different from ceramic tiles. Cement tiles are made with the use of water, while in ceramics fire is used. As regards the allegation of the petitioner that the private respondent copied some designs of Pomona, suffice it to say that what is in issue here is the process involved in tile making and not the design.

In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that Patent No. 658 was legally issued, the process and/or improvement being patentable.