Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 92 views

    Gr. 180677

    Uploaded by

    Adi Lim
    The Supreme Court ruled that Diaz was not liable for trademark infringement. While Diaz sold jeans that imitated the designs of genuine Levi's 501 jeans, including replicating trademarks like the arcuate design and leather patch, there was no likelihood of confusion. The consuming public would not mistake Diaz's jeans, which were labeled "LS Jeans Tailoring" and acquired from tailoring shops on a made-to-order basis, as genuine Levi's 501 jeans that were only available in malls or boutiques as ready-to-wear items. As such, the elements of trademark infringement under the Intellectual Property Code were not satisfied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gr. 180677

    Uploaded by

    Adi Lim
    92 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Diaz was not liable for trademark infringement. While Diaz sold jeans that imitated the designs of genuine Levi's 501 jeans, including replicating trademarks like the arcuate design and leather patch, there was no likelihood of confusion. The consuming public would not mistake Diaz's jeans, which were labeled "LS Jeans Tailoring" and acquired from tailoring shops on a made-to-order basis, as genuine Levi's 501 jeans that were only available in malls or boutiques as ready-to-wear items. As such, the elements of trademark infringement under the Intellectual Property Code were not satisfied.

    Original Description:

    x

    Original Title

    1. GR. 180677

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Diaz was not liable for trademark infringement. While Diaz sold jeans that imitated the designs of genuine Levi's 501 jeans, including replicating trademarks like the arcuate design and leather patch, there was no likelihood of confusion. The consuming public would not mistake Diaz's jeans, which were labeled "LS Jeans Tailoring" and acquired from tailoring shops on a made-to-order basis, as genuine Levi's 501 jeans that were only available in malls or boutiques as ready-to-wear items. As such, the elements of trademark infringement under the Intellectual Property Code were not satisfied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    92 views2 pages

    Gr. 180677

    Uploaded by

    Adi Lim
    The Supreme Court ruled that Diaz was not liable for trademark infringement. While Diaz sold jeans that imitated the designs of genuine Levi's 501 jeans, including replicating trademarks like the arcuate design and leather patch, there was no likelihood of confusion. The consuming public would not mistake Diaz's jeans, which were labeled "LS Jeans Tailoring" and acquired from tailoring shops on a made-to-order basis, as genuine Levi's 501 jeans that were only available in malls or boutiques as ready-to-wear items. As such, the elements of trademark infringement under the Intellectual Property Code were not satisfied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Diaz vs People of the Philippines Remedies; Infringement.

    — Any person who shall, without the consent


    G.R. No. 180677 February 18, 2013 of the owner of the registered mark:

    Facts: Levi Strauss Philippines, Inc. (Levi’s Philippines) is a licensee 155.1. Use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or
    of Levi’s. After receiving information that Diaz was selling counterfeit colorable imitation of a registered mark or the same container or a
    LEVI’S 501 jeans in his tailoring shops in Almanza and Talon, Las dominant feature thereof in connection with the sale, offering for sale,
    Piñas City, Levi’s Philippines hired a private investigation group to distribution, advertising of any goods or services including other
    verify the information. Surveillance and the purchase of jeans from the preparatory steps necessary to carry out the sale of any goods or
    tailoring shops of Diaz established that the jeans bought from the services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause
    tailoring shops of Diaz were counterfeit or imitations of LEVI’S 501. confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
    Levi’s Philippines then sought the assistance of the National Bureau of
    Investigation (NBI) for purposes of applying for a search warrant 155.2. Reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered
    against Diaz to be served at his tailoring shops. The search warrants mark or a dominant feature thereof and apply such reproduction,
    were issued in due course. Armed with the search warrants, NBI agents counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints,
    searched the tailoring shops of Diaz and seized several fake LEVI’S 501 packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used
    jeans from them. Levi’s Philippines claimed that it did not authorize the in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale,
    making and selling of the seized jeans; that each of the jeans were mere distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with
    imitations of genuine LEVI’S 501 jeans by each of them bearing the which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
    registered trademarks, like the arcuate design, the tab, and the leather deceive, shall be liable in a civil action for infringement by the
    patch; and that the seized jeans could be mistaken for original LEVI’S registrant for the remedies hereinafter set forth: Provided, That the
    501 jeans due to the placement of the arcuate, tab, and two-horse leather infringement takes place at the moment any of the acts stated in
    patch. Diaz stated that he did not manufacture Levi’s jeans, and that he Subsection 155.1 or this subsection are committed regardless of
    used the label “LS Jeans Tailoring” in the jeans that he made and sold; whether there is actual sale of goods or services using the infringing
    that the label “LS Jeans Tailoring” was registered with the Intellectual material.
    Property Office; that his shops received clothes for sewing or repair;
    that his shops offered made-to-order jeans, whose styles or designs were The elements of the offense of trademark infringement under the
    done in accordance with instructions of the customers; that since the Intellectual Property Code are, therefore, the following:
    time his shops began operating in 1992, he had received no notice or
    warning regarding his operations; that the jeans he produced were easily  The trademark being infringed is registered in the Intellectual
    recognizable because the label “LS Jeans Tailoring,” and the names of Property Office;
    the customers were placed inside the pockets, and each of the jeans had  The trademark is reproduced, counterfeited, copied, or colorably
    an “LSJT” red tab; that “LS” stood for “Latest Style;” and that the imitated by the infringer;
    leather patch on his jeans had two buffaloes, not two horses.  The infringing mark is used in connection with the sale, offering
    for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services; or the
    Issue: Whether or not Diaz is liable for trademark infringement. infringing mark is applied to labels, signs, prints, packages,
    wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used
    Held: No. Section 155 of R.A. No. 8293 defines the acts that constitute upon or in connection with such goods, business or services;
    infringement of trademark, viz:  The use or application of the infringing mark is likely to cause
    confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the
    goods or services themselves or as to the source or origin of such guilt did not satisfy the quantum of proof required for a criminal
    goods or services or the identity of such business; and conviction, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt. According to
     The use or application of the infringing mark is without the Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, proof beyond a reasonable
    consent of the trademark owner or the assignee thereof. doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of
    error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or
    As can be seen, the likelihood of confusion is the gravamen of the that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
    offense of trademark infringement. There are two tests to determine mind. Consequently, Diaz should be acquitted of the charges.
    likelihood of confusion, namely: the dominancy test, and the holistic
    test. The contrasting concept of these tests was explained in Societes
    Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Dy, Jr., thus:

    x x x. The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the main, prevalent


    or essential features of the competing trademarks that might cause
    confusion. Infringement takes place when the competing trademark
    contains the essential features of another. Imitation or an effort to
    imitate is unnecessary. The question is whether the use of the marks is
    likely to cause confusion or deceive purchasers.

    The holistic test considers the entirety of the marks, including labels and
    packaging, in determining confusing similarity. The focus is not only
    on the predominant words but also on the other features appearing on
    the labels.

    The holistic test is applicable here considering that the herein criminal
    cases also involved trademark infringement in relation to jeans products.
    Accordingly, the jeans trademarks of Levi’s Philippines and Diaz must
    be considered as a whole in determining the likelihood of confusion
    between them. The maong pants or jeans made and sold by Levi’s
    Philippines, which included LEVI’S 501, were very popular in the
    Philippines. The consuming public knew that the original LEVI’S 501
    jeans were under a foreign brand and quite expensive. Such jeans could
    be purchased only in malls or boutiques as ready-to-wear items, and
    were not available in tailoring shops like those of Diaz’s as well as not
    acquired on a “made-to-order” basis. Under the circumstances, the
    consuming public could easily discern if the jeans were original or fake
    LEVI’S 501, or were manufactured by other brands of jeans.

    Given the foregoing, it should be plain that there was no likelihood of


    confusion between the trademarks involved. Thereby, the evidence of

    You might also like