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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 141 views

    Levi Strauss v. Clinton Aparelle

    Uploaded by

    jexabejero
    Levi Strauss & Co. filed a trademark infringement case against Clinton Apparelle for selling jeans branded "Paddocks", which used a logo similar to Dockers' wing-shaped design. The lower court granted a temporary restraining order against Clinton. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this, stating that while the certificate of registration gives Levi Strauss exclusive rights, this is not absolute. The ruling found that the registered trademark consisted of the word "Dockers" and design, but Clinton only used the design with a different word ("Paddocks"). As such, it was unclear if the single registration allowed preventing use of just part of the trademark. The court determined that Levi Strauss did not have clear rights to

    Copyright:

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

    Levi Strauss v. Clinton Aparelle

    Uploaded by

    jexabejero
    141 views2 pages
    Levi Strauss & Co. filed a trademark infringement case against Clinton Apparelle for selling jeans branded "Paddocks", which used a logo similar to Dockers' wing-shaped design. The lower court granted a temporary restraining order against Clinton. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this, stating that while the certificate of registration gives Levi Strauss exclusive rights, this is not absolute. The ruling found that the registered trademark consisted of the word "Dockers" and design, but Clinton only used the design with a different word ("Paddocks"). As such, it was unclear if the single registration allowed preventing use of just part of the trademark. The court determined that Levi Strauss did not have clear rights to

    Original Title

    47. Levi Strauss v. Clinton Aparelle

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Levi Strauss & Co. filed a trademark infringement case against Clinton Apparelle for selling jeans branded "Paddocks", which used a logo similar to Dockers' wing-shaped design. The lower court granted a temporary restraining order against Clinton. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this, stating that while the certificate of registration gives Levi Strauss exclusive rights, this is not absolute. The ruling found that the registered trademark consisted of the word "Dockers" and design, but Clinton only used the design with a different word ("Paddocks"). As such, it was unclear if the single registration allowed preventing use of just part of the trademark. The court determined that Levi Strauss did not have clear rights to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    141 views2 pages

    Levi Strauss v. Clinton Aparelle

    Uploaded by

    jexabejero
    Levi Strauss & Co. filed a trademark infringement case against Clinton Apparelle for selling jeans branded "Paddocks", which used a logo similar to Dockers' wing-shaped design. The lower court granted a temporary restraining order against Clinton. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this, stating that while the certificate of registration gives Levi Strauss exclusive rights, this is not absolute. The ruling found that the registered trademark consisted of the word "Dockers" and design, but Clinton only used the design with a different word ("Paddocks"). As such, it was unclear if the single registration allowed preventing use of just part of the trademark. The court determined that Levi Strauss did not have clear rights to

    Copyright:

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

    Topic: Certificate of Registration

    LEVI STRAUSS VS. CLINTON APPARELLE, INC.

    FACTS:
    The petitioners, LS & Co and LS Phils, Inc filed a trademark infringement
    against the respondent Clinton Apparelle. LS & Co. is a US based corporation
    and owner by prior adoption of the “Dockers and Design” trademark. It has a
    certificate of registration in the Philipines for the use of the said trademark
    on garments. The petitioners alleged that the respondent has been selling
    jeans with a brand name “Paddocks” which is almost similar to the Dockers
    and Design trademark. The lower court granted issued TRO against the
    respondent from restraining them committing the acts complained of. The
    CA reversed the RTC. Hence, this petition.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the petitioners could exclusively prevent the respondent from
    using its trademark

    RULING:
    NO. Although the petitioners have the Certificate of Registration and gives
    them right to exclusively prevent others from using a trademark that is
    confusingly similar to theirs as per RA 8392, such right is not absolute when
    it is a there is no trademark infringement. A Certificate of Registration is a
    mere prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, the registrant’s
    ownership of the mark and of the exclusive right to use the same.

    The petitioners’ registered trademark consists of two elements: the word


    mark “Dockers” and the wing-shaped design or logo. Notably, there is only
    one registration for both features of the trademark giving the impression
    that the two should be considered as a single unit.

    Clinton Apparelle’s trademark uses the “Paddocks” word mark on top of a


    logo which according to petitioners is a slavish imitation of the “Dockers”
    design. The two trademarks apparently differ in their word marks (“Dockers”
    and “Paddocks”), but again according to petitioners, they employ similar or
    identical logos. It could thus be said that respondent only “appropriates”
    petitioners’ logo and not the word mark “Dockers”; it uses only a portion of
    the registered trademark and not the whole.

    Given the single registration of the trademark “Dockers and Design” and
    considering that respondent only uses the assailed device but a different
    word mark, the right to prevent the latter from using the challenged
    “Paddocks” device is far from clear. Stated otherwise, it is not evident
    whether the single registration of the trademark “Dockers and Design”
    confers on the owner the right to prevent the use of a fraction thereof in the
    course of trade. It is also unclear whether the use without the owner’s
    consent of a portion of a trademark registered in its entirety constitutes
    material or substantial invasion of the owner’s right.

    RATION DECIDENDI:

    Section 138 of Republic Act No. 8293, the Certificate of Registration is a


    prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, the registrant’s
    ownership of the mark and of the exclusive right to use the same in
    connection with the goods or services and those that are related thereto
    specified in the certificate.

    Given the single registration of the trademark “Dockers and Design” and
    considering that respondent only uses the assailed device but a different
    word mark, the right to prevent the latter from using the challenged
    “Paddocks” device is far from clear. It is not evident whether the single
    registration of the trademark “Dockers and Design” confers on the owner the
    right to prevent the use of a fraction thereof in the course of trade.

    You might also like