G.R. No. 119280 - Unilever Philippines , Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Unilever Philippines (PRC), Inc. (Petitioner) is engaged in marketing laundry products and aired certain television commercials featuring a "double tug" or "tac-tac" key visual, showing fabric held by both hands and stretched sideways.
Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc. (P&GP) (Private Respondent), a subsidiary of Procter & Gamble Company, claimed prior conceptualization and use of the "tac-tac" key visual in their advertisements as early as 1982, first by a P&G subsidiary in Italy.

P&GP alleged that Unilever had substantially and materially imitated its "tac-tac" key visual in a 60-second television commercial for its "Breeze Powerwhite" laundry product called "Porky," which aired on July 24, 1993.
P&GP also aired the "Kite" television advertisement in the Philippines in July 1994, which featured the same visual used in Italy in 1986 to promote its "Ace" bleaching liquid product.
On August 1, 1994, Unilever filed a complaint with the Advertising Board to prevent P&GP from airing the "Kite" advertisement.

On August 24, 1994, P&GP filed a complaint for injunction with damages, and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction against Unilever for alleged intellectual property infringement.
On August 26, 1994, the trial court issued a TRO, and set a hearing for September 2, 1994, to determine if a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued.
During the hearings, both parties submitted pleadings and oppositions; Unilever opposed the issuance of the writ.
On September 16, 1994, the trial court issued the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Unilever from using the commercials until further orders.
Unilever posted the required bond of P100,000 and filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA) assigning errors including:

Lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in issuing the injunction;
Premature decision on the merits of the case;
Issuance of relief involving a non-party;
Deprivation of due process, including the inability to cross-examine certain witnesses.

On February 24, 1995, the CA affirmed the issuance of the preliminary injunction, dismissing Unilever’s petition for certiorari for lack of merit.

Unilever filed a petition for review under Rule 45 assailing the CA decision, reiterating the claim that no clear and unmistakable right existed on the part of P&GP to merit the issuance of the writ and that due process was violated.

Whether the trial court and Court of Appeals erred or acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction against Unilever.
Whether P&GP had a clear and unmistakable right to the preliminary injunction despite lack of registration of the "tac-tac" key visual.
Whether the issuance of the preliminary injunction constituted a prejudgment on the merits of the main case.
Whether Unilever’s right to due process was violated by the issuance of the writ without opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses or fully present evidence.
Whether P&GP, as a subsidiary, had standing to bring and maintain the injunction suit protecting the contested intellectual property rights.