Case Digest (G.R. No. 233659)
Facts:
Levi Strauss & Co. and Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. v. Clinton Apparelle, Inc., G.R. No. 138900, September 20, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Levi Strauss & Co. (LS & Co.) and Levi Strauss (Philippines), Inc. (LSPI) (plaintiffs below) filed a Complaint for Trademark Infringement, Injunction and Damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 90 (Civil Case No. Q-98-34252) on 29–30 April 1998 against Clinton Apparelle, Inc. (respondent) and alternatively Olympian Garments, Inc. The complaint alleged that LS & Co. owned the internationally famous registered trademark “Dockers and Design” (BPTTT Certificate No. 46619) used in the Philippines since 1988 and that respondent was marketing jeans under the brand “Paddocks” using a device substantially similar to petitioners’ wing-shaped logo without consent.
Petitioners sought, among other reliefs, a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from manufacturing, distributing or selling garments bearing the contested design. The RTC set a summary hearing for the TRO (May 5, 1998, later rescheduled to May 14). Neither defendant appeared at the May 14 hearing; the trial court proceeded to hear petitioners’ proofs and issued a TRO (Order dated May 15, 1998) restraining defendants from using the complained-of design pending further resolution. Petitioners then filed the required injunction bond and, on June 4, 1998, the RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction (order required bond of P2,500,000).
In support, the RTC considered petitioners’ certificate of registration, sample DOCKERS and PADDOCKS garments, a Trends MBL consumer survey, and affidavits recounting prior adoption and survey methodology. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC denied those motions in an Omnibus Order dated 2 October 1998 and reiterated the injunction; the writ was issued on 8 October 1998.
Respondent then filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (Rule 65), challenging the RTC’s TRO and preliminary injunction. The CA issued a TRO (20 October 1998) and, in a Decision dated 21 December 1998, set aside the RTC orders—finding the TRO improperly issued due to defective notice of the summary hearing and concluding that petitioners had not sufficiently shown entitlement to a preliminary injunction (criticizing the commissioned survey and finding monetary damages may suffice). Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied (Resolution dated 10 May 1999).
Petiti...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the temporary restraining order and the writ of preliminary injunction?
- Did petitioners sufficiently prove a clear and unmistakable legal right and irreparable injury entitling them to a preliminary injunction to enjoin respondent’s use of the contested device?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in setting aside the RTC’s orders and in declaring there is no confu...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)