MANLY SPORTWEAR v. DADOTTE ENTERPRISES

MANLY SPORTWEAR v. DADOTTE ENTERPRISES

G.R. No. 165306

DATE September 20, 2005.

PONENTE YNARES-SANTIAGO; J.

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/S: 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.

At most, the certificates of registration and deposit issued by the National Library and the Supreme Court Library serve merely as a notice of recording and registration of the work but do not confer any right or title upon the registered copyright owner or automatically put his work under the protective mantle of the copyright law. It is not a conclusive proof of copyright ownership. As it is, non-registration and deposit of the work within the prescribed period only makes the copyright owner liable to pay a fine.