Case Digest (G.R. No. L-1679)
Facts:
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Antonio Sevilla and Antonio L. Guevarra, G.R. No. 219744, September 18, 2023, Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Levi Strauss & Co. (a foreign corporation and owner of the word mark LEVI’S since 1946) alleged that respondents Antonio Sevilla and Antonio L. Guevarra (owners of the registered stylized mark LIVE’S, Registration No. 53918, covering Class 25 goods) used a mark confusingly similar to petitioner’s trademark. Petitioner licensed Levi Strauss Phils., Inc. (LSPI) in 1972; Sevilla was the original registrant of LIVE’S and later assigned his rights to Guevarra (doing business as Vogue Traders Clothing Company). In 1995 LSPI commissioned a consumer survey (Project Cherokee 5) that found strong public association between LIVE’S and LEVI’S.On December 13, 1995 petitioner filed a Petition for Cancellation of Registration No. 53918 with the then-Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT, now IPO). Respondents denied confusing similarity, stressing differences in spelling, pronunciation, trade dress, pricing and channels of distribution, and asserting prior use and valid registration. The IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPO-BLA) denied cancellation in a Decision dated January 29, 2009. The IPO Director General (IPO‑DG) affirmed that decision on August 13, 2012.
Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated September 26, 2014 the CA dismissed the petition as moot and academic because Registration No. 53918 had been assigned to a third party (Dale Sy) on July 31, 2012, and also treated G.R. No. 162311 (Levi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. v. Tony Lim) as res judicata. The CA de...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly dismiss the petition as moot and academic and correctly apply res judicata (by invoking G.R. No. 162311)?
- Should Trademark Registration No. 53918 for the mark LIVE’S be cancelled on the ground of confusing similarity with ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)