CHING KUAN CHUAN VS CA

FACTS:

Wilson Ong imports vermicelli from China. He repacks it in cellophane

wrappers with a design of two-dragon and the tower trademark on the
upper most portion. Ong acquired a Certificate of Registration from the
National Library.

Subsequently, Ong discovered that Lorenzo Tan repacked his vermicelli

he imports from the same company based in China, in a nearly
identical wrapper. This prompted Ong to file against Tan for
infringement of copyright with damages. He allege that he was the
holder of Certificate of Copyright Registration over the cellophane
wrapper with the two-dragon design, and that Tan used in an identical
wrapper in his business.

In the contrary, Tan allege that Ong was not entitled to his claim.
According to Tan, Ong did not have a clear right over the use of
trademark Pagoda and Lungkow vermicelli as these were registered
under the name of CEROIL FOOD based in China. Also, Ong merely
copied the two-dragon design from CEROIL FOOD which had the
Certificates of Registration issued by the different countries. As such,
Ongs Certificate of Copyright Registration was not valid for lack of
originality.

Issue: W/N Ongs Certificate of Copyright Registration was valid?

Ruling:

No, The court held that to resolve this controversy, we have to return
to basics. A person to be entitled to a copyright must be the original
creator of the work. He must have created it by his own skill, labor and
judgment without directly copying or evasively imitating the work of
another.

A person to be entitled to a copyright must be the original creator of

the work. He must have created it by his own skill, labor and judgment
without directly copying or evasively imitating the work of another; The
grant of preliminary injunction in copyright case depends chiefly on the
extent of doubt on the validity of the copyright, existence of
infringement, and the damages sustained by such infringement.
COLUMBIA PICTURES VS CA

Facts:
In 1986, the Videogram Regulatory Board (VRB) applied for a warrant
against Jose Jinco (Jingco), owner of Showtime Enterprises for allegedly
pirating movies produced and owned by Columbia Pictures and other
motion picture companies. Jingco filed a motion to quash the search
warrant but the same was denied in 1987. Subsequently, Jinco filed an
Urgent Motion to Lift the Search Warrant and Return the Articles
Seized. In 1989, the RTC judge granted the motion. The judge ruled
that based on the ruling in the 1988 case of 20th Century Fox Film
Corporation vs CA, before a search warrant could be issued in
copyright cases, the master copy of the films alleged to be pirated
must be attached in the application for warrant.

Issue: Whether or not the 20th Century Fox ruling may be applied
retroactively in this case?

Ruling:

No. In 1986, obviously the 1988 case of 20th Century Fox was not yet
promulgated. The lower court could not possibly have expected more
evidence from the VRB and Columbia Pictures in their application for a
search warrant other than what the law and jurisprudence, then
existing and judicially accepted, required with respect to the finding of
probable cause.

The Supreme Court also revisited and clarified the ruling in the 20th
Century Fox Case. It is evidently incorrect to suggest, as the ruling
in 20th Century Fox may appear to do, that in copyright infringement
cases, the presentation of master tapes of the copyright films is always
necessary to meet the requirement of probable cause for the issuance
of a search warrant. It is true that such master tapes are object
evidence, with the merit that in this class of evidence the
ascertainment of the controverted fact is made through demonstration
involving the direct use of the senses of the presiding magistrate. Such
auxiliary procedure, however, does not rule out the use of testimonial
or documentary evidence, depositions, admissions or other classes of
evidence tending to prove the factum probandum, especially where
the production in court of object evidence would result in delay,
inconvenience or expenses out of proportion to is evidentiary value.

In fine, the supposed pronouncement in said case regarding the

necessity for the presentation of the master tapes of the copy-righted
films for the validity of search warrants should at most be understood
to merely serve as a guidepost in determining the existence of
probable cause in copy-right infringement cases where there is doubt
as to the true nexus between the master tape and the pirated copies.
An objective and careful reading of the decision in said case could lead
to no other conclusion than that said directive was hardly intended to
be a sweeping and inflexible requirement in all or similar copyright
infringement cases.