Manly Sportswear Manufacturing,
Inc vs. Dadodette Enterprise
G.R. No. 165306
September 20, 2005
FACTS:
On
March 17, 2003, RTC- Quezon City, Branch 83 issued a search warrant against
Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center after finding reasonable
grounds that respondents violated Sections 172 and 217 of Republic Act (RA) No.
8293. Respondents then moved to quash and annul the search warrant claiming
that the sporting goods manufactured by and/or registered in the name MANLY are
ordinary hence, not among the classes protected under Sec. 172 of RA 8293.
On June 10, 2003 the trial court
granted the motion to quash and declared the search warrant issued as null and
void. MANLY filed a motion for reconsideration on August 11, 2003, but was
later on denied for lack of merit.
After denial of the motion for
reconsideration, MANLY filed a petition for review of certiorari in the Court
of Appeals but was later on denied.
ISSUE:
W/N
the copyrighted products of MANLY are original creations subject to the
protection of RA 8293.
RULING:
No. The copyright
certificates issued in favor of MANLY constitute a prima facie evidence of
validity and ownership. However, presumption of validity is not created when a
sufficient proof or evidence exist that may cast a doubt on the copyright
validity. In the case at bar, validity and originality will not be presumed
since the copyrighted products of MANLY are not original creations considering
that these products are readily available in the market under various brands.
Moreover, no copyright accrues in favor of MANLY despite the issuance of the
copyright certificate this purely serves as a notice of recording and
registration of the work and is not a conclusive proof of copyright ownership
as provided in Sec. 2, Rule 7 of the Copyrights Safeguards and Regulations.
