Scribd
Upload
63 views

Ching v. Salinas

(1) The petitioner Ching holds copyright registrations for a utility model called a Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this model is not an artistic or literary work subject to copyright, but rather a useful article that could be patented. Copyright protection does not extend to useful articles unless they incorporate pictorial, graphic or sculptural features that can exist independently of the utilitarian aspects. (2) Even though copyright certificates were issued, the Supreme Court held that copyright can only be granted to works that fall within the statutory definition. Since the model was determined to be a useful article and not a copyrightable work, the certificates did not confer valid copyright protection. Certificates only provide

Uploaded by

Dhin Carag
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
63 views

Ching v. Salinas

(1) The petitioner Ching holds copyright registrations for a utility model called a Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this model is not an artistic or literary work subject to copyright, but rather a useful article that could be patented. Copyright protection does not extend to useful articles unless they incorporate pictorial, graphic or sculptural features that can exist independently of the utilitarian aspects. (2) Even though copyright certificates were issued, the Supreme Court held that copyright can only be granted to works that fall within the statutory definition. Since the model was determined to be a useful article and not a copyrightable work, the certificates did not confer valid copyright protection. Certificates only provide

Uploaded by

Dhin Carag
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CHING V. SALINAS, SR. (G.R. NO.

161295)

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 and is a proper subject of a patent,
not copyright. 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.
Ruling:
(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. Indeed, in Joaquin, Jr. v.Drilon and Pearl &
Dean (Phil.), Incorporated v. Shoemart, Incorporated, the Court ruled that:
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.
Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by proof of originality and copyrightability. To discharge his burden, the applicant may
present the certificate of registration covering the work or, in its absence, other evidence. A copyright certificate provides prima
facie evidence of originality which is one element of copyright validity. It constitutes prima facie evidence of both validity and ownership
and the validity of the facts stated in the certificate.

You might also like