Manly Sportswear Manufacturing Inc. v Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center GR No. 165306, September 20, 2005

Facts:

The NBI secured a search warrant on March 14, 2003 from the RTC to act upon the information that respondents were in possession of goods copyright of which belongs to the petitioner. Finding reasonable grounds in violation of Section 172 and 217 of RA 8293 a search warrant was issued. Respondents move to quash and annul the search warrant contending it is invalid and the requisites for its issuance are not complied with. They insist that the sporting goods manufactured and registered in the name MANLY is just ordinary and common and not among the classes protected under RA 8293. The court granted the motion to quash declaring the search warrant null and void because there were certificates of registrations issued earlier than MANLY for the same sporting goods under various brands thereby negating the fact that their products are copyrighted and original creations. Motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court sustaining the lower court’s decision thus this instant petition for review for certiorari.



Issue: 


Whether or not the certificate of registration in favor of MANLY sustains the action against the respondents.

Ruling: 


The court ruled that the petitioner is not protected by the copyright law despite the issuance of the copyright certificate of registration as it merely gives prima facie evidence of the validity and ownership. Therefore if the there are sufficient evidence that the copyrighted products are not original creations and are readily available in the market under various brands, validity and originality will not be presumed therefore the trial court has the right to quash the issued warrant for lack of probable cause. Moreover no copyright accrues to the petitioner since Sec. 2, Rule 7 of the Copyrights Safeguards and Regulations provides that the registration and deposit of work is purely for recording the date of registration and is not conclusive as to the copyright ownership. It is not a proof of copyright ownership and non-payment for registration within the prescribed period shall only make the copyright owner liable to pay a fine.