Case Summary (G.R. No. 119280)
Background and Facts
P&GP, a subsidiary of Procter and Gamble Company, alleges that since as early as 1982, a key visual called "double tug" or "tac-tac," showing fabric being stretched sideways with both hands, had been used in its advertisements for laundry and bleaching products. This visual was conceptualized by the Italian advertising agency Milano and Gray in 1982 and was used in Italy and subsequently in the Philippines. P&GP claims that in July 1993, Unilever aired a television commercial for its "Breeze Powerwhite" product that substantially imitated this "tac-tac" visual. In response, P&GP filed a complaint for an injunction with damages and sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to enjoin Unilever from airing its allegedly infringing commercials.
Procedural History and Petitioner's Arguments
Judge Fernando V. Gorospe, Jr. granted the temporary restraining order, which was followed by a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Unilever from airing the commercials. Unilever appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) and later petitioned the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition, asserting that: (1) the lower courts issued the injunction without evidence of P&GP’s clear and unmistakable right; (2) the injunction prematurely disposed of the case without trial, denying Unilever due process; (3) the injunction order improperly extended relief to a non-party; and (4) Unilever was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine P&GP’s witnesses.
Court of Appeals’ and Supreme Court’s Findings on Preliminary Injunction
The CA affirmed the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, holding that Judge Gorospe did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that Unilever did not dispute the substantial similarity of its commercials to the "tac-tac" key visual but argued that P&GP’s lack of registration of copyright at the National Library barred injunctive relief. The Court clarified that under PD 49, copyright subsists from the moment of creation without the necessity of registration. Therefore, registration is not a prerequisite to the exercise or protection of intellectual property rights.
The Court explained that issuance of a preliminary injunction requires a verified complaint showing that the plaintiff is probably entitled to the relief sought and that the acts complained of violate this probable right. The trial court’s determination at this stage is merely tentative and not a prejudgment of the case’s merits, which are to be resolved after full trial.
Jurisdictional and Procedural Considerations
The Court further held that P&GP was within its rights as a subsidiary to invoke intellectual property protections and that the trial court correctly followed the procedural requirements under Section 5, Rule 58, as amended by BP 224, including providing notice and an opportunity for Unilever to oppose the injunction application. The Court rejected the contention that Unilever was denied due process or the chance for cross-examination, noting that Unilever was given multiple hearings and filed various pleadings opposing the injunction.
Policy and Equitable Considerations Supporting Injunction
The Court recognized the urgency in granting the injunction, noting the ephemeral nature of television commercials whose airing is limited and time-bound. Without temporary relief, any permanent injunction obtained after trial could prove moot if the commercials had already ceased airing. Hence, the injunction serves
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 119280)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Unilever Philippines (PRC), Inc. challenged the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against it by the trial court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
- The injunction enjoined Unilever from using and airing television commercials for its laundry products that were alleged to be identical or substantially similar to Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc.'s (P&GPhils) “double tug” or “tac-tac” key visual.
- P&GPhils filed the complaint asserting that the "tac-tac" visual was created in 1982 by an Italian subsidiary and advertising agency and has been used continuously in their advertisements, including local use in the Philippines.
- P&GPhils alleged that Unilever started airing a TV commercial ("Porky") on July 24, 1993, which materially imitated the “tac-tac” demonstration.
- P&GPhils also aired a local version of the 1986 Italian “Kite” advertisement featuring the “tac-tac” visual in July 1994, which Unilever sought to prevent through the Advertising Board of the Philippines.
- The trial court issued a temporary restraining order on August 26, 1994, followed by a writ of preliminary injunction on September 16, 1994.
- Petitioner Unilever appealed the injunction to the CA, arguing the issuance was without clear evidence of a right, prejudged the case, deprived due process, and was beyond jurisdiction.
Issues Presented
- Whether the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction was justified by sufficient evidence of P&GPhils’ clear and unmistakable right.
- Whether the injunction improperly disposed of the main case without trial, thereby denying Unilever the opportunity to present evidence.
- Whether P&GPhils had enforceable intellectual property rights despite lack of copyright registration of the commercials.
- Whether P&GPhils, as a subsidiary, had standing to claim protection under PD 49.
- Whether the procedure followed by the trial court on the injunction application complied with procedural rules and due process.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
- The CA found no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.
- The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari due to lack of merit based on evidence presented.
- The CA deemed sufficient the verified allegations by P&GPhils showing probable cause that its intellectual property rights were being infringed.
- The CA found that the injunction was a provisional remedy meant to pr