Most Common Intellectual Property

           Trademark, copyright and patents are the most common intellectual property rights and cannot be interchanged with one another.
A trademark is any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped, or marked container of goods.
A copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation.
             Obviously violations involving trademark is called trademark infringement; for copyright, copyright infringement; for patent, patent infringement. to have a quick understanding about these breaches, lets take a look at the case of Pearl and Dean vs SMI.

                                                     [G.R. No. 148222. August 15, 2003]
PEARL & DEAN (PHIL.), INCORPORATED, vs. SHOEMART, INCORPORATED, ET AL

Facts:
          Pearl and Dean (Phil.), Inc. is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of advertising display units simply referred to as light boxes. These units utilize specially printed posters sandwiched between plastic sheets and illuminated with back lights. Pearl and Dean was able to secure a Certificate of Copyright Registration dated January 20, 1981 over these illuminated display units. The advertising light boxes were marketed under the trademark "Poster Ads".
          Sometime in 1985, Pearl and Dean negotiated with defendant-appellant Shoemart, Inc, (SMI) for the lease and installation of the light boxes in SM City North Edsa. Since SM City North Edsa was under construction at that time, SMI offered as an alternative SM Makati and SM Cubao, to which Pearl and Dean agreed. On September 11, 1985, Pearl and Dean's General Manager, Rodolfo Vergara, submitted for signature the contracts covering SM Cubao and SM Makati to SMI's Advertising Promotions and Publicity Division Manager, Ramonlito Abano. Only the contract for SM Makati, however was returned signed.
           Two years later, SMI contracted with Metro Industrial Services, the company formerly contracted by Pearl and Dean to fabricate its display units. After its contract with Metro Industrial was terminated, SMI engaged the services of EYD Rainbow Advertising Corporation to make the light boxes. Some 300 units were fabricated in 1991. These were delivered on a staggered basis and installed at SM Megamall and SM City.
            In the light of its discoveries, Pearl and Dean sent a letter dated December 11,1991 to both SMI and NEMI enjoining them to cease using the subject light boxes and to remove the same from SMI's establishments. It also demanded the discontinued use of the trademark "Poster Ads," and the payment to Pearl and Dean of compensatory damages in the amount of Twenty Million Pesos (P20,000,000).

Issues:

1. if the engineering or technical drawings of an advertising display unit (light box) are granted copyright protection (copyright certificate of registration) by the National Library, is the light box depicted in such engineering drawings ipso facto28 also protected by such copyright?

2. or should the light box be registered separately and protected by a patent issued by the Bureau of Patents Trademarks and Technology Transfer (now Intellectual Property Office) - in addition to the copyright of the engineering drawings?

3. can the owner of registered trademark legally prevent others from using such trademark if it is a mere abbreviation of a term descriptive of his goods services or business?

Ruling:

On the Issue of Copyright Infringement

Petitioners P& D's complaint was that SMI infringed on its copyright over the light boxes when SMI had the units manufactured by Metro and EYD Rainbow Advertising for its own account. If SMI and NEMI reprinted P&D's, technical drawings for sale to the publi without license from P & D, then no doubt they would have been guilty of copyright infringement. But this was not the case. SMI's and NEMI's acts complained of by P & D were to have units similar or  identical to the light box illustrated in the technical drawings manufactured  by Metro and EYD Rainbow Advertising for leasing out to different advertisers. Was this an infringement of petitioner's copyright over the technical drawings? The SC said no.

On the Issue of Patent Infringement

There can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has been issued, since whatever right one has to the invention covered by the patent arises alone from the grant of patent. An inventor has no common law right to a monopoly of his invention. He has the right to make use of and vend his invention, but if he voluntarily discloses it, such as by offering it for sale, the world is free to copy and use it with impunity. A patent, however, gives the inventor the right of exclude all others. As a patentee, he has the exclusive right of making, selling or using the invention.

To be able to effectively and legally preclude others from copying and profiting from the invention, a patent is a primordial requirement. No patent, no protection. the ultimate goal of a patent system is to bring new designs and technologies into the public domain through. Ideas once disclosed to the public without the protection of a valid patent, are subject to appropriation without significant restraint.

On the Issue of Trademark Infringement

This issue concerns the use by respondents of the mark "Poster Ads" which petitioners president said was a contraction of "poster advertising".
Assuming arguendo that "Poster Ads" could validly qualify as a trademark, the failure of P & D to secure a trademark registration for specific use on the light boxes meant that there could not have been any trademark infringement since registration was an essential element thereof.