Case Digest (G.R. No. 138900)
Facts:
In Levi Strauss & Co. and Levi Strauss (Philippines), Inc. (petitioners), manufacturers and distributors of apparel, filed on April 30, 1998 a Complaint for Trademark Infringement, Injunction, and Damages against Clinton Apparelle, Inc. (respondent) and alternative defendant Olympian Garments, Inc. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 90 (Civil Case No. Q-98-34252). Petitioners alleged ownership by prior adoption and use since 1986 of the internationally famous “Dockers and Design” trademark, validly registered under Certificate of Registration No. 46619 covering pants, shirts, skirts, and related apparel. They claimed respondent was manufacturing and selling “Paddocks” jeans bearing a logo substantially similar to the wing-shaped design of the “Dockers and Design” mark without consent. Petitioners sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), writ of preliminary injunction, and damages. On May 15 and June 4, 1998, the RTC granted the TRO and the writ of prCase Digest (G.R. No. 138900)
Facts:
- Parties and Trademark
- Petitioners Levi Strauss & Co. (LS & Co.) and Levi Strauss (Philippines), Inc. (LSPI) are owners of the “Dockers and Design” trademark, first used in the Philippines in May 1988 and registered under Certificate No. 46619 for apparel.
- Respondent Clinton Apparelle, Inc. (Clinton) manufactures and sells “Paddocks” jeans bearing a wing-shaped logo allegedly similar to petitioners’ design; an alternative defendant, Olympian Garments, Inc., was also impleaded.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- Petitioners filed a Complaint for trademark infringement, injunction, and damages (Civil Case No. Q-98-34252), praying for a TRO, preliminary injunction, and destruction of infringing goods.
- On May 15, 1998, the RTC issued a TRO after respondent failed to appear at summary hearings; on June 4, 1998, it granted a writ of preliminary injunction upon petitioners’ posting of a ₱2,500,000 bond.
- Appellate Proceedings
- Clinton moved to dismiss and for reconsideration; these were denied in an October 2, 1998 omnibus order, and the injunction was implemented on October 8, 1998.
- Clinton secured a temporary restraining order from the Court of Appeals and on December 21, 1998, the CA set aside the RTC’s TRO and preliminary injunction for procedural and substantive deficiencies. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on May 10, 1999.
Issues:
- Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the TRO and preliminary injunction.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)