Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Ching vs. Salinas G.R. No. 161295, June 29, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Ro Che
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2005 regarding copyright infringement. The petitioner Ching registered copyrights for an "Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile" and requested an investigation into illegal manufacturing of the work. Search warrants were issued but later quashed because the items were found to not be copyrightable subject matter under the law. The Supreme Court ruled that the items were merely utilitarian and did not fall under the categories of "literary or artistic works" or "derivative works" protected by copyright law. Therefore, there was no basis for claims of copyright violation or reinstatement of the search warrants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ching vs. Salinas G.R. No. 161295, June 29, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Ro Che
    45 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2005 regarding copyright infringement. The petitioner Ching registered copyrights for an "Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile" and requested an investigation into illegal manufacturing of the work. Search warrants were issued but later quashed because the items were found to not be copyrightable subject matter under the law. The Supreme Court ruled that the items were merely utilitarian and did not fall under the categories of "literary or artistic works" or "derivative works" protected by copyright law. Therefore, there was no basis for claims of copyright violation or reinstatement of the search warrants.

    Original Title

    9. Ching v Salinas.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2005 regarding copyright infringement. The petitioner Ching registered copyrights for an "Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile" and requested an investigation into illegal manufacturing of the work. Search warrants were issued but later quashed because the items were found to not be copyrightable subject matter under the law. The Supreme Court ruled that the items were merely utilitarian and did not fall under the categories of "literary or artistic works" or "derivative works" protected by copyright law. Therefore, there was no basis for claims of copyright violation or reinstatement of the search warrants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    45 views2 pages

    Ching vs. Salinas G.R. No. 161295, June 29, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Ro Che
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2005 regarding copyright infringement. The petitioner Ching registered copyrights for an "Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile" and requested an investigation into illegal manufacturing of the work. Search warrants were issued but later quashed because the items were found to not be copyrightable subject matter under the law. The Supreme Court ruled that the items were merely utilitarian and did not fall under the categories of "literary or artistic works" or "derivative works" protected by copyright law. Therefore, there was no basis for claims of copyright violation or reinstatement of the search warrants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Ching vs. Salinas G.R. No.

    161295, June 29,  2005

    FACTS:

    On September 4, 2001, Ching and Joseph Yu were issued by the


    National Library Certificates of Copyright Registration and Deposit of the
    said work described therein as “Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for
    Automobile.”

    On September 20, 2001, Ching requested the National Bureau of


    Investigation (NBI) for police/investigative assistance for the
    apprehension and prosecution of illegal manufacturers, producers
    and/or distributors of the works. After due investigation, the NBI filed
    applications for search warrants in the RTC of Manila against William
    Salinas, Sr. and the officers and members of the Board of Directors of
    Wilaware Product Corporation.

    The trial court subsequently quashed the warrants that were issued. The
    RTC as affirmed by the CA ruled that it is settled that preliminarily, there
    must be a finding that a specific offense must have been committed to
    justify the issuance of a search warrant.

    The petitioner is praying for the reinstatement of the search warrants


    issued, but subsequently quashed, for the offense of Violation of Class
    Designation of Copyrightable Works under Section 177.1 in relation to
    Section 177.3 of Republic Act 8293.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the items subject of the search warrant were


    copyrightable

    RULING:

    It is worthy to state that the works protected under the Law on


    Copyright are: literary or artistic works (Sec. 172) and derivative works
    (Sec. 173). The Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion fall
    on neither classification. Accordingly, if, in the first place, the item
    subject of the petition is not entitled to be protected by the law on
    copyright, how can there be any violation?
    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. 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. 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.

    You might also like