University of Cebu

Cebu City

COLLEGE OF LAW

COURSE SYLLABUS

I. COURSE NUMBER : LAW 218

II. COURSE TITLE : Intellectual Property Law

III.COURSE DESCRIPTION : This subject is a study of the law on copyrights, trademarks, patents and special laws related to
Intellectual Property Rights as contained in the contained in the Intellectual Property Code.

IV.COURSE PREREQUISITE : NA

V. COURSE CREDIT : 2 units

VI.GENERAL OBJECTIVES : The students are expected to gain thorough knowledge and understanding about the basic
Intellectual Property ecosystem particularly copyright, trademarks and patents and
how they impact the nation’s economy and the global economy. The students are
required to be familiar with international IP conventions such as the Agreement on Trade
Related Aspects on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), the Berne Convention and
the Paris Convention.
 VII. COURSE OUTLINE

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES CONTENTS TIME STRATEGIES/ACTIV INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

ALLOTMENT ITIES
 To familiarize students with the I. Basic Intellectual Property Information 1st meeting  Oral recitation  Textbook of Ernesto C. Salao
basics of intellectual property and its to initially entitled “Essentials of Intellectual
importance First three determine the Property Law
 To enable students to understand the  Legal theory on IP topics after level of
legal bases for IP especially the discussion students’  Website of the Intellectual
 What is IP ? WIPO Definition Property Office
constitutional and Civil Code awareness of IP
provisions applicable 2nd meeting www.ipophil.gov.ph;
 An Overview of Copyright, Patents and
Trademarks  Students’
 To appreciate how IP started and how 1 hour for discussion on  Website of WIPO :
it evolved through time  Pertinent Constitutional Provisions assignments the assigned https://www.wipo.int/portal/en/
including topics based on index.html
 To recognize the relationship   Civil Law Basis - Arts. 712; 721;722; 724 the case of flipped
between IP and Economics Tanada and classroom  Constitution and the Civil Code
 Historical Basis another stategy, where
hour for 5.1 assignments  Read Prelims IP lecture notes;
 IP and Economics to 5.3 youtube
and materials
including are given
Assignments : (For Flipped Classroom)
first 5 before hand for
1. Read IP Prelim Lecture notes cases from students to  Powerpoint presentations
2. Read about copyright : Feist study. The next
https://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq_c Publications meeting will be Illustrative Cases
opyright.html to Manly devoted on Q
3. Watch youtube: sportswear and A ü   Tañada v. Angara (GR No. 118295,
https://www.youtube.com/watch? May 2, 1997 ) En Banc
v=_7lZHOxPEII
 A combination of  Recommended textbook of
V. Copyright the following Salao (pages 223-284)
 To trace back the development of shall be adopted  Secs. 171-229 of the IP Code
copyright and how it relates with the 5.1 Historical Background for the different  Power point presentation
invention of printing content items  www.ipophil.gov.ph
 To describe the essence of copyright 5.2 What is copyright? whenever  Read RA 10372 as to
and its scope of protection applicable and Amendments of the IP Code
 To compare and contrast the two 5.3 When does copyright vest? deemed more  What are the offices added to
types of copyrightable works effective : IPOPHL
 To discern the type of works excluded 5.4 Copyrightable Works
from copyright protection a) original works (literary and 3rd meeting a) Oral Recitation Illustrative Cases (5.1 to 5.3)
 To illustrate how economic rights and artistic) - (Sec. 172) 2 hours for
moral rights of copyright owners are b) derivative works (Sec. 173-174) Items 5.4 b) Quizzes or short 1. Feist Publications v. Rural
exercised to 5.8 exercises Telephone – 499 US 340 (1991)
 To explain the various rules on 5.5 Non-copyrightable works (Sec. 175- including 2. Joaquin v. Drilon G.R No.
copyright ownership 176) assigned c) Long exams 108946, 28 Jan 1999)
cases from 3. Filipino Society of Composers,
 To point out when the doctrine of fair
5.6 Rights of Copyright Owners 6 to 17 d)Submission of Authors and Publishers vs.
use is applicable and the instances
a) Economic Rights written reports Benjamin Tan, GRN. L-36402,
enumerated by law when one can use
b) Moral Rights th
4 meeting and reaction paper March 16, 1987
copyrighted work without being sued
Prelims on the issue of 4. Ching vs. Salinas, GR No.
for infringement
5.7 Rules on Ownership of Copyright Coverage : plagiarism 161295, June 29, 2005
 To appreciate how neighboring rights
1 up to 5.8 5. Manly Sportwear Manufacturing
develop in tandem with copyright
5.8 Limitations on Copyright and e) Case digest Inc.vs. Dadodette, GR No.
- Permitted Use Assignments 165306, September 20, 2005
 Recognize the various remedies
- Doctrine of Fair Use (4 and 5) f) Group reporting
available to IP owners in case of
and Cases 1 Illustrative Cases for 5.4 to 5.7
violations of their IP rights Assignments : (For Flipped Classroom) to 17 g) panel discussion 6. Fernando U. Juan v. Roberto U.
Juan, GR No. 221732, Aug 23,
 To distinguish the main differences 4. RA 10372 2017
Sept.4,
between copyright and other 5. FAQs on the Amendments to the IP 2019 – 7. Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity
intellectual property Code (See Brands, Inc. 580 U. S. ____
Prelim
https://www.officialgazette.gov.p Exam good (2017)
 To let the students discuss the various h/2013/03/08/faqs-on-the- for 1 hour 8. Rentmeester v. Nike 9th Cir.,
cases assigned and apply the different
 principles or provisions of the amendments-to-the-intellectual- Feb 27, 2018
copyright law under a given case property-code-of-the-philippines/ 9. Naruto, et. al. v. Slater No. 16-
After the 15469 (9th Cir. 2018)
5.9 Term of Copyright exam; 10. Olano vs. Lim G.R. No. 195835,
 To validate if students can relate the 1hour March 14, 2016
IP provisions with that of the legal 5.10 Neighboring Rights or Related discussion/
issues raised in the cases assigned Rights Video 11. UNILEVER Philippines vs. CA and
presenta- Procter and Gamble Phils Inc.,
5.11 Infringement and Remedies tion on G.R. No. 119280, ( August 10,
- Differentiate plagiarism from Neighboring 2006)
infringement rights 12. Sambar vs. Levi Strauss & Co./,
GR No. 132604, ( March 6, 2002)
5.12 Evidentiary Considerations (Secs. 13. Bayanihan Music vs. BMG, Jose
216-226) Lecture on Mari Chan, GRN 166337, March
5.9 to 5.13 7, 2005
5.13 Copyright contrasted with other
industrial property Illustrative Cases for 5.8
th
5 meeting
Assignments : (For Flipped Classroom) 14. Sony Corp. v. Universal City
Cases 18 Studios, Inc. 464 US 417, SC 984
6. What are Neigboring Rights? Watch to 22 15.  Campbell v. Acuff- Rose
https://www.youtube.com/watch? Music ,` - US Court of Appeals
v=3APFX4zavjw Recap on for the 6th Circuit, March 7,
7. Copyright and Fair Use Explained copyright 1994
by a lawyer. Watch through a 16. Habana vs. Robles GR No.
https://www.youtube.com/watch? power point 131522, July 19, 1999
v=p5Mt-yf-OBA presentatio 17.  ABS-CBN v. Gozon, G.R. No.
n. 195956 March 11, 2015

Illustrative Cases for 5.9 to 5.12

18. Rappler vs. Bautista, G.R. No.

222702, April 5, 2016
19. ABS-CBN vs. Philippine Multi-
Media System, Inc. GRN
 175769- 70, January 19, 2009)
20. NBI-Microsoft Corp. vs. Hwang
GR No. 147043, June 21, 2005
L- 76649-51, Aug 19, 1988

Illustrative Cases for 5.13

21. Pearl & Dean vs. Shoemart Inc,

GR No.148222, Aug 15, 2003
22. Kho vs. CA, GR No. 115758,
Mar. 19, 2002

 To enable students to define VI. Law on Trademarks 6th meeting  Recommended book of Salao
trademarks, its purposes and rights 6.1 Definitions of marks, collective  A combination ( pages 123-221 of Salao’s book)
conferred by it marks and trade names (Sec. 121) 2 hours for of the
including Container marks under RA 6.1 to 6.6 following shall  Secs. 121-170 of the IP Code
 To describe in detail how rights to a 623 including be adopted for
mark are acquired as compared to the the different  Powerpoint presentation
one’s rights to a tradename and 6.2 Functions of a Mark relevant content items
relate it vis a vis the rights of a prior cases (No. whenever Illustrative cases for 6.1 to 6.6
user under RA 166 6.3 Concept of Origin 23 to 33) applicable and
deemed more 23. Ang v. Teodoro (74 Phil 50)
 To know when marks cannot be 6.4 How Rights to a Mark are Acquired effective : 24. Mirpuri vs. Court of Appeals,
registered a) under Sec. 2 of RA 166 G.R. No. 114508 November 19,
 To recognize the criteria set by b) under Sec. 122 of RA 8293 a) Oral Recitation 1999
law for one to be considered as well- c) under RA 623 25. (2010) Superior Commercial
known marks b) Quizzes or short Enterprises Inc. vs. Kunnan
6.5 How Rights to a Tradename are exercises Enterprises and Sports Concept
 To have a good grasp of the different Acquired and Distributors Inc., G.R.
legal concepts such as confusion of c) Long exams No.   169974, April 20, 2010
goods versus confusion of business 6.6 Prior Use of a Mark as a Requirement 26. (2010) Coffee Partners,
and dominancy test versus the holistic - under RA 166 Inc. vs. San Francisco Coffee &
test - under RA 8293 d)Submission of Roastery, Inc., GRN. 2010 G.R.
 - who prevails prior user under RA written reports No. 169504 March 3, 2010
 To illustrate the use of the NICE 166 or registrant under RA 8293
Classification by simulating the e) Simulation of 27. De La Salle Montessori
registration process to have an idea 6.7 What are non-registrable marks 7th meeting the registration International of Malolos, Inc. vs.
how to register a trademark under Sec. 123? 6.7 to 6.16 process for De La Salle Brothers, Inc. et al.,
including trademarks G.R. No. 205548, February 7,
 To evaluate the remedy appropriate 6.8 Misleading as to geographical origin the cases 2018
to a given situation by understanding from #34 to f) Case digest 28. Shangrila Hotels vs. DGCI, GR
relevant jurisprudence on trademark 6.9  Indicative of quality of geographical 43 No. 159938, March 31, 2006
infringement, unfair competition, origin g) Group reporting
cancellation of trademarks, injunction Illustrative cases for 6.7 to 6.9
and the grant of damages 6.10 Identical mark with respect to MIDTERMS h) panel discussion
a) same goods (Sept 30 to 29. Joseph Matal v. Simon Tam 582
 To understand the prevailing b) dissimilar goods Oct. 5 U. S. ____ (2017)
doctrines in trademark law as c) closely related goods 30. ABS-CBN Publishing, Inc. v.
enunciated by the Supreme Court in - Concept of Confusion of goods vs. Coverage : Director of the Bureau of
its most recent decisions Confusion of business Topics 5.9 Trademarks, G.R. No. 217916,
to 6. 19 and [June 20, 2018]
 To determine whether cases decided 6.11 Tests to determine confusing cases from 31. Berris v Abyadang, GRN 183404,
prior to RA 8293 still apply similarity between marks #18 to 43 Oct. 13, 2010
a) Dominancy Test Misleading as to geographical origin
b) Holistic Test 32. (2011) FREDCO Manufacturing
Corp. vs. President and Fellows
6.12 NICE Classification of Harvard College, GRN
185917, June 1, 2011
6.13 Well-known marks – Sec 123.1 (e)
Art. 6bis of the Paris Convention 33. Forietrans Manufacturing
>  same goods - La Chemise Corp., et. al vs. Davidoof Et.
Lacoste; Mirpuri v. CA Cie SA & Japan Tobacco Inc.,
> dissimilar goods March 6, 2017
> Theory of Dilution
Illustrative Cases for 6.10 A
6.14 Sec. 20 of RA 166 vs. Sec. 138 of
the IP Code 34. Mighty Corp. vs. E.J Gallo
Winery [G.R. No. 154342. July
6.15 Application for Registration -Secs.
124 to 143 (take note of Sec.124.2)
- Maintenance/Renewal of
registration(Sec. 146)
- Excusable non-use (Sec. 152)
6.16 Rights conferred by registration (Sec.
147-150)
6.17 Rights by third parties of names
similar to registered mark
6.18 Cancellation of Registration –
Sections 151-154
6.19  License Contracts – Section 150
14, 2004]
35. Societe Des Produits, Nestle,
S.A. v. Puregold Price Club,
G.R. No. 217194, Sept. 6, 2017
(J. Carpio)
36. MANG INASAL PHILIPPINES,
INC.vs. IFP MANUFACTURING
CORPORATIO(G.R.N. 221717,
19 June 2017(J. Velasco,Jr. )
37. Kolin vs. Kolin, GRN 209843,
8th Meeting March 25, 2015

6.20 Infringement and Remedies (Secs. 6.20 up to 38. Emerald v. CA, G.R. 100098
155-164, 166 6.22 (Cases (1995)
a) Trademark Infringement # 44 to 49
b) Damages 39. Emerald Garment
c) Requirement of Notice Manufacturing Corporation Vs.
The H.D. Lee Company, Inc.
6.21 Unfair Competition G.R. No. 210693. June 7, 2017
6.22 Collective marks (J. Reyes)

6.23 Criminal penalties for infringement 9th meeting 40. Seri Somboonsakdikul Vs.
,unfair competition, false designation 6.23 to 6.24 Orlane S.A.
of origin, and false description or (Cases #50- G.R. No. 188996. February 1,
misrepresentation 59) 2017 (J. Jardeleza

6.24 Issues in Jurisdiction 41. UFC Philippines, Inc. Vs. Barrio

Fiesta Manufacturing
Corporation G.R.N 198889. Jan.
20, 2016 [Justice Teresita de
 Castro]

10th and Illustrative Cases 6.10 C

meeting 42. (2010)SocietedesProduits,NESTL
11th E,SA Vs. Martin Dy. G.R. No.
meeting 43.
44. 172276 , August 8, 2010
(Panel 45.  La Chemise Lacoste vs.
discussion) Hernandez, [G.R. Nos. L-
by groups 63796-97 May 21, 1984]

12th Illustrative cases for 6.11 to 6.13

meeting
46. (2011) Skechers, USA Inc vs.
Recap of Inter Pacific Industrial Corp.,
Trademark GRN. 164321, Mar. 23, 2011
s
47. (2006) Skechers, USA Inc vs.
Inter Pacific Industrial Corp
Nov. 6, G.R. No. 164321, November 30,
(Semi final 2006
Exam 48. (2010) Dermaline Inc. vs. Myra
Pharmaceuticals Inc., GRN
Coverage : 190065, Aug. 16, 2010
Topic 6.20 49. (2007) Sehwani Inc., vs. In-N-
-24) Cases Out Burger,  GRN. 171053, Oct.
# 44 up to 15, 2007
59 50. Levi Strauss vs. Clinton
including Aparelle,GR No. 138900,Sept
reports of 20,2005
the Illustrative Cases for 6.15 to 6.19
students 51. LEVI STRAUSS (PHILS.), INC., vs.
Vogue Traders Clothing Company,
GRN, 132993, June 29, 2005
Illustrative Cases for 6.20 to 6.24

52. (2010) Arnel Ty vs. NBI

Supervising Agent de Jemil,
GRN.182147, Dec. 15, 2010
53. (2009) Juno Batistis vs. People
of the Phils, GRN. 181571,
Dec. 16, 2009
54. (2009) Tanduay Distillers Inc vs.
Ginebra San Miguel, GRN
164324, Aug. 14, 2009
55. Coca-Cola Bottlers Plant, Inc
(Naga-Plant) vs. Quintin Gomez
G.R. No. 154491 

Illustrative Cases for 6.25

56. Compania General de Tabacos
de Filipinas and La Flor de
la Isabela Inc. vs. Hon Virgilio
Sevandal, et.al G.R. No.
161051, July 23, 2009
57. (2008) In-N-Out Burger, Inc. vs.
Sehwani, Inc, GRN. 179127,
Dec. 24, 2008
58. 2004 (Samson vs. Hon. Daway,
GRN 160054-55, July 21, 2004
59. Intellectual Property
Association of the Philippines
vs. Ochoa,et.al G.R. No.
204605, July 19, 2016 (J.
Bersamin) en banc decision
 VII. Law on Patents 13th to 16th
 To define patent and know its meeting A combination of Ses. 21 -84 of the IP Code
purposes and rights conferred by it 7.1 Purpose of the Patent System (Patents) the following Pages 51-121 of Salao's Textbook
 To distinguish inventions that re 7.2 Patentable Inventions activities shall be
patentable and non patentable 7.3 Non-Patentable Inventions done for each of
 To outline the procedure for the 7.4 Ownership of a Patent 13 th
the different
grant of a patent (1) Right to a patent meeting content items Illustrative Cases for Patents
 To be familiar will the rights and (2) First-to-file rule whenever
limitations of a patent (3) Inventions created pursuant to a Topics 7.1 applicable and 60. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co.
 To have an idea on registration of Commission to 7.5 deemed more v. Francisco, G.R. No. 174379,
utility models and industrial designs (4) Right of priority (Cases 60 effective: [August 31, 2016 Justice Leonen
 To know the remedies available to 7.5 Application for a Patent up to 66) 61. (2010) Philippine Pharmawealth
persons deprived of patent 7.6 Grounds for Cancellation of a Patent  Lectures; Inc. vs. Pfizer Inc, and Pfizer
7.7 Remedy of the true and actual Phils, GRN, 167715, Nov. 17,
 To know the remedies against
patent infringement
Inventor 14th  Class 2010
7.8 Rights Conferred by a Patent meeting discussion with 62. Manzano vs. CA, GRN 113388,
 To have an idea on voluntary and
7.9 Limitations of Patent Right Topics 7.6 an assigned Sept 5, 1997
compulsory licensing agreements;
(1) Prior user to 7.14 discussant;
and how rights to a patent can be
(2) Use by the Government 63. Aguas vs. de Leon, 111 SCRA
assigned or transmitted
7.10 Utiliy Models  Case study 238 1982
- Registrability analysis; 64. Maguan vs. CA, 146 SCRA 107 ,
- Rights of holder 1986
7.11 Industrial Design  Oral Recitation 65. G. Sell v. Yap Jue, 12 Phil 519,
7.12 Patent infringement 1909
(1) Tests in patent infringement
(a) Literal infringement 66. Smith Kline v. CA, 409 SCRA 33
(b) Doctrine of equivalents (2003)
(2) Civil and criminal action
(3) Prescriptive period
(4) Defenses in action for
infringement
7.13 Licensing
(1) Voluntary
(2) Compulsory
7.14 Assignment and transmission of rights
 To determine jurisdiction over
 criminal and civil cases for
violations of intellectual property
rights
 To understand the reasons
behind the creation of special courts
for intellectual property rights
violations
 To have an overview on the
nature and requisites of search
warrant
VIII. Searches and Seizures in IP Cases
8.1 Writ of Search and Seizure
8.2 Grounds for Issuance of Writ of
Search and Seizure
8.3 Bonds and Counterbonds
15th Meeting Discussion and
8. 1 to 8.3 power point
presentation Pages 286-312 of Palao’s Book
A.M No. 02-1-06-SC Rule on Search and
Seizure in Civil Actions for
Infringement of IPR (took effect on
Feb. 15, 2002)
ü Sanrio Co. Limited vs. Edgar Lim ,
GRN 168662, Feb. 19, 2008
ü  People et.al vs. Choi, GR No.
152950, Aug. 3, 2006
ü  Solid Triangle Sales Corp.vs.
Sheriff, 422 Phils. 72,83, 2001
ü  Sony Computer Entertainment
Inc. vs. Bright Tech G.R. No.
169156, February 15, 2007

VIII. EVALUATIVE MEASURES : A combination of the following evaluation methods shall be done for the different content items whenever
applicable and deemed more effective:

a) Oral recitation
b) Written examination
c) Simulation exercises
d) Submission of case digests
e) Submission of reaction papers

IX. COURSE REQUIREMENTS : Class standing – 40% ( this comprises of quizzes, prelim exam, semifinal exam, written and oral reports,
 and other projects) In particular the 40 % is further subdivided into the following :

15% - prelim/semi final exam

15% - graded recitation
10% - quizzes, projects, repots

Midterm/Final Exam – 60%

The final grade is the result of the following : (Grade in the Midterm Period + Grade in the Final Period
divided by 2)

X. REFERENCES : Recommended Text Book : The Essentials of Intellectual Property Law by Ernesto Salao
Useful websites : www.ipophil.gov.ph;www.wipo.int

Prepared by: Atty. Josh Carol T. Ventura

Approved by: Dean Al-Shwaid Ismael