Title
Diaz vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 180677
Decision Date
Feb 18, 2013
Diaz acquitted of trademark infringement; Supreme Court found no likelihood of confusion between his "LS Jeans Tailoring" and Levi’s trademarks, citing distinct marks and market segments.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 43082)

Facts:

  • Parties and Case Background
    • Victorio P. Diaz (Petitioner) was charged with two counts of infringement of trademark under Sections 155 and 170 of Republic Act No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines).
    • The complaints were filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of Levi Strauss (Philippines), Inc. (LEVIaS), alleging Diaz reproduced, counterfeited, copied, and colorably imitated registered LEVIaS trademarks such as the arcuate design, two-horse brand, tab, and leather patch on jeans, selling counterfeit jeans which caused confusion or deception.
    • Diaz denied manufacturing counterfeit jeans, claiming he operated tailoring shops producing made-to-order jeans under his registered trademark "LS Jeans Tailoring," which was visually and aurally distinct from LEVIaS marks.
  • Facts Leading to the Charges
    • LEVIaS is a well-known foreign company engaged in apparel business, owning registered trademarks on LEVIaS 501 jeans, including specific labels and designs registered in the Philippine Patent Office since the 1970s-1990s.
    • Upon receiving reports of counterfeit LEVIaS jeans being sold at Diaz’s tailoring shops, LEVIaS Philippines hired a private investigator and, with NBI's assistance, conducted surveillance and executed search warrants, seizing alleged counterfeit jeans.
    • Diaz admitted ownership of the shops but stated his products bore the label "LS Jeans Tailoring," not LEVIaS, and the leather patches depicted two buffaloes, not horses.
  • Trial and Initial Rulings
    • Diaz pleaded not guilty; the RTC found Diaz guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to imprisonment of two to five years per count and imposed fines and damages to LEVIaS.
    • On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed Diaz’s appeal for failure to timely file his appellant’s brief despite multiple extensions granted. Diaz’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Diaz’s appeal for late filing of appellant’s brief, thereby overriding substantial justice.
  • Whether Diaz was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of trademark infringement under Section 155 of the Intellectual Property Code.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.