Case Digest (G.R. No. 132993)
Facts:
Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. v. Vogue Traders Clothing Company, G.R. No. 132993, June 29, 2005, the Supreme Court First Division, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. (a licensee of Levi Strauss & Co.) holds multiple Philippine registrations for the LEVIS family of trademarks and, beginning in 1972, a non-exclusive license from the U.S. principal. Petitioner discovered respondent Vogue Traders Clothing Company marketing jeans bearing the mark LIVES, which petitioner considered confusingly similar, and filed two inter partes cancellation proceedings before the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) — Inter Partes Cases Nos. 4216 and 4217 — seeking cancellation of respondent’s registrations.
Separately, petitioner secured criminal search warrants from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Manila (Search Warrants Nos. 95-757 and 95-758 dated December 12, 1995). Those warrants were executed on December 13, 1995 and goods, equipment and documents were seized; related criminal charges were later dismissed and the warrants quashed. On February 1, 1996, respondent filed Civil Case No. 96-76944 in the RTC, Branch 50, Manila, seeking recovery of seized items and damages, alleging it was a lawful assignee and authorized user of the LIVES marks and related copyrights.
Petitioner answered and filed a counterclaim for trademark infringement and sought cancellation of respondent’s copyright registration and a preliminary injunction. The case was routed to the Special Court for intellectual property cases (RTC Branch 1). At the December 4, 1996 hearing respondent (plaintiff in that action) failed to appear and, upon petitioner’s motion, the trial court declared respondent to have waived its right to present evidence and considered the matter submitted. In an order dated December 10, 1996 the RTC (Branch 1) issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining petitioner from manufacturing, distributing, selling or advertising jeans substantially similar to respondent’s marks, conditioned on a P500,000 bond; the court denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration on April 11, 1997.
Respondent sought relief from the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari; on August 13, 1997 the Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the RTC’s December 10, 1996 and April 11, 1997 orders, finding grave abuse of discretion and directing the RTC to desist from proceeding with Civil Case No. 96-76944 until the BPTTT finally resolved Inter Partes Cases Nos. 4216 and 4217. The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration in a March 5, 1998 resolution. Petitioner filed the present petition for review o...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to suspend the RTC proceedings and preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 96-76944 because of the pending inter partes cases before the BPTTT?
- Was respondent’s petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals fatally defective for having its certification against forum-shopping executed by counsel rather than by a corporate officer?
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion and deny due process by declaring respondent to have waived its right to present evidence when its counsel failed to appear on December 4, 1996?
- Did the issuance of the preliminary injun...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)