Facts:
The petition arose from a dispute between petitioner
Pearl Dean (Phil.), Inc. and respondents
Shoemart, Inc. and
North Edsa Marketing, Inc. Petitioner secured a Certificate of Copyright Registration dated January 20, 1981 for its engineering or technical drawings of illuminated advertising display units commonly called light boxes, and applied for registration of the trademark
"Poster Ads" on June 20, 1983, which was recorded on September 12, 1988 under Registration No. 41165 covering stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes, calling cards and newsletters. In 1985 petitioner negotiated with SMI for the lease and installation of petitioner’s light boxes in SM branches; one contract (SM Makati) was signed, another (SM Cubao) was not, and SMI purported to rescind the Makati contract in January 1986. Thereafter Metro Industrial Services and later EYD Rainbow Advertising fabricated light boxes for SMI; petitioner discovered in 1989 and thereafter that light boxes similar to those illustrated in its technical drawings had been installed in several SM stores, and that NEMI, a sister company of SMI, sold advertising space on such units. Petitioner sent a demand dated December 11, 1991 seeking cessation of use, removal of the units, discontinuance of the mark
"Poster Ads", and PHP 20,000,000 in damages; defendants partially complied but petitioner filed suit for copyright and trademark infringement, unfair competition and damages in RTC, Makati, Civil Case No. 92-516. The RTC, Branch 133, rendered judgment in favor of petitioner, finding defendants jointly and severally liable for infringement of copyright under Section 2 of P.D. 49, as amended, and infringement of trademark under Section 22 of R.A. No. 166, as amended, and awarded actual damages of PHP 16,600,000, moral damages of PHP 1,000,000, exemplary damages of PHP 1,000,000, attorney’s fees of PHP 1,000,000, costs, and injunctive relief and impoundment and destruction of infringing materials. On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed by decision dated May 22, 2001, dismissing the complaint and the counterclaims. Petitioner then sought review under Rule 45, and the Supreme Court resolved the petition in a decision promulgated August 15, 2003.
Issues:
Did petitioner’s copyright registration of the engineering or technical drawings of the light boxes extend *ipso facto* to the light boxes themselves? Did respondents commit patent infringement or could petitioner have protected the light boxes only by securing a patent? Did respondents infringe petitioner’s registered trademark
"Poster Ads" given that the certificate specified stationeries and the phrase appears generic? Were respondents liable for unfair competition and the damages awarded by the trial court?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: