Case Digest (G.R. No. 92626-29)
Facts:
In Levi Strauss & Co. vs. Antonio Sevilla and Antonio L. Guevarra (G.R. No. 219744, March 1, 2021), petitioner Levi Strauss & Co., a foreign corporation owning the word mark “LEVI’S” since 1946 and licensed locally to Levi Strauss Phils., Inc. (LSPI), sought cancellation of respondents’ stylized “LIVE’S” mark (Reg. No. 53918, Class 25) registered first by Sevilla and later assigned to Guevarra (Tony Lim) of Vogue Traders Clothing Company. In 1995 LSPI’s consumer survey (“Project Cherokee 5”) revealed that 86% of respondents associated “LIVE’S” with “LEVI’S,” and 90% even read it as “LEVI’S.” On December 13, 1995, petitioner filed a Petition for Cancellation before the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfer (now Intellectual Property Office, IPO). Guevarra and Sevilla opposed, arguing negligible confusion due to differences in price, trade dress, spelling, pronunciation and existing registration. The IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs (January 29, 2009) and IPO Director ...Case Digest (G.R. No. 92626-29)
Facts:
- Background of the Parties and Marks
- Petitioner Levi Strauss & Co. (foreign corp.)
- Owner of the “LEVI’S” word mark since 1946, goods in Class 25 NCL
- Licensed Levi Strauss Phils., Inc. (LSPI) in 1972 for non-exclusive use
- Respondents Antonio Sevilla and Antonio L. Guevarra
- Sevilla originally registered the LIVE’S mark (Class 25)
- Assigned to Guevarra (doing business as Vogue Traders Clothing Co.)
- Consumer Survey and Cancellation Proceedings
- Project Cherokee 5 (1995) commissioned by LSPI
- 86% associated “LIVE’S” with “LEVI’S”
- 90% read stylized LIVE’S as “LEVI’S”
- Petition for Cancellation filed Dec. 13, 1995 before IPO
- Ground: confusing similarity between LIVE’S and LEVI’S
- Respondents’ defenses: differences in spelling, pronunciation, trade dress, price, mature consumer base
- IPO Decisions
- IPO-BLA Decision (Jan. 29, 2009): denied cancellation—no confusing similarity
- IPO-DG Decision (Aug. 13, 2012): affirmed IPO-BLA—cited G.R. No. 162311
- Court of Appeals (CA) Proceedings
- CA Decision (Sept. 26, 2014): dismissed petition—grounds of mootness and res judicata (citing G.R. No. 162311; assignment to Dale Sy)
- CA Resolution (July 28, 2015): denied motion for reconsideration
Issues:
- Did the CA correctly rule that the case was moot and academic, and that G.R. No. 162311 operates as res judicata?
- Should the petition for cancellation be granted for confusing similarity between LEVI’S and LIVE’S?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)