Case Digest (G.R. No. 180677)
Facts:
Accused Victorio P. Diaz was convicted by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 255, Las Pinas City for two counts of infringement of trademark under Section 155, in relation to Section 170, of Republic Act No. 8293, based on allegations that he sold and distributed counterfeit LEVI STRAUSS jeans bearing registered LEVIS 501 dominant features. The Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal for belated filing of the appellant’s brief, and later denied his motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court reviewed the records and resolved Diaz’s guilt notwithstanding the CA’s dismissal.
The prosecution relied on the registered LEVIS trademarks and features, while Diaz admitted ownership of the tailoring shops but asserted that he did not counterfeit Levis and instead used his own LS JEANS TAILORING trademark, including differing labeling and design features, which he claimed prevented confusion. The RTC convicted Diaz, and the CA’s procedural dismissal effectively prevented review of the merits at that level.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing Diaz’s appeal due to the late filing of the appellant’s brief.
- Whether the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, the element of likelihood of confusion required for criminal trademark infringement.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court set aside the CA’s outright dismissal and acquitted Diaz, holding that the evidence failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On the merits, the Court found no likelihood of confusion between the trademarks as used on the jeans, considering differences in the total presentation and the relevant buyer context, so the convictions could not stand.
Ratio:
The Court emphasized that likelihood of confusion is the gravamen of trademark infringement and that an acquittal should follow when the allegedly infringing mark is not likely to cause confusion; accordingly, the prosecution did not meet the required standard.
Applying the holistic test for jeans-related trademark infringement, the Court considered the whole look of the marks, including labels and packaging features, and noted that Diaz’s LS JEANS TAILORING mark and design presentation were visually and aurally different from LEVI STRAUSS & CO on the original goods. It further found that the circumstances of purchase and the identity of the “ordinary purchaser” made confusion unlikely, defeating the element of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Doctrine:
- Likelihood of confusion is the gravamen of criminal infringement of a registered trademark under R.A. No. 8293; absent such likelihood, acquittal must follow.
- (Get Pro to unlock 5 more doctrines)