Quiz 14 Questions Flashcards
Discussion:
G.R. No. 161295
1) Why was the quashal of the search warrant sustained?
The quashal of the search warrant was sustained because there was no cause of action. The materials to be searched are not copyrightable materials. Only patentable.
G.R. No. 161295
2) Were the bushing and bearing subject to copyright? Explain.
No. The bushing and bearing were not subject to copyright as these are useful articles with industrial applicability. Useful articles are not subject to copyright.
G.R. No. 161295
3) How could an artistic feature in an industrial design be subject to copyright?
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.
G.R. No. 211850
4) Differentiate on how ownership of trademark is made under RA 166 (Trademark Law) and RA 8293 (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines).
Under the Trademark Law, ownership of trademark is achieved through prior use. Meanwhile, under the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, ownership of trademark is achieved through registration.
G.R. No. 211850
5) Who was liable for infringement?
None. Neither party was liable for infringement.
G.R. No. 211850
6) What are the entities that may concurrently use identical or confusing marks under the Intellectual Property Law?
Under the Intellectual Property Law, a prior user in good faith and a first registrant in good faith are the only entities that may concurrently use identical or confusing marks.
G.R. No. 211850
7) How could the public be protected when the parties are using confusingly similar marks for identical products?
The public can be protected by using generics.
Notes:
