Ching V Salinas

Ching v Salinas
Doctrine:
Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. It is a new or independent right granted by the statute, and
not simply a pre-existing right regulated by it. Being a statutory grant, the rights are only such as the statute confers, and may
be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects and by the persons, and on terms and conditions specified in the
statute. Accordingly, it can cover only the works falling within the statutory enumeration or description.
Facts:
Petitioner Ching is a maker and manufacturer of a utility model, Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile, for which he holds
certificates of copyright registration. Petitioner’s request to the NBI to apprehend and prosecute illegal manufacturers of his
work led to the issuance of search warrants against respondent Salinas, alleged to be reproducing and distributing said models
in violation of the IP Code. Respondent moved to quash the warrants on the ground that petitioner’s work is not artistic in
nature; they are considered automotive spare parts and pertain to technology. They aver that the models are not original, and
as such are the proper subject of a patent, not copyright.
On the other hand, petitioner insists that the IP Code protects a work from the moment of its creation regardless of its nature
or purpose. The trial court quashed the warrants. Petitioner argues that the copyright certificates over the model are prima
facie evidence of its validity. CA affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not petitioner’s model is an artistic work subject to copyright protection.
(2) Whether or not petitioner is entitled to copyright protection on the basis of the certificates of registration issued to it.
Held:
(1) NO.
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 and Vehicle Bearing Cushion are merely utility models. 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. Plainly, these are not literary or artistic
works. They are not intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain, or works of applied art. They are certainly not
ornamental designs or one having decorative quality or value. 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. In this case, the bushing and
cushion are not works of art. They are, as the petitioner himself admitted, utility models which may be the subject of a patent.
(2) NO.
No copyright granted by law can be said to arise in favor of the petitioner despite the issuance of the certificates of copyright
registration and the deposit of the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion.
Note: Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. Thus, it can cover only the works falling within the
statutory enumeration or description.
Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by: (1) proof of originality and (2) copyrightability. However, in this case the
subject matter is not copyrightable being not of the same kind and nature as the works enumerated in Section 172 of IPC.
“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 acreation 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.

Ching V Salinas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ching V Salinas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ching V Salinas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ching v Salinas

You might also like