Emerald vs. HD Lee

GR No.
210693; June 7, 2017
Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corp. vs. The H.D. Lee Company
Facts:
On December 21, 2001, Herein respondent, H.D. Lee, filed before the Intellectual Property
Office (IPO) an application (which included jeans, casual pants, trousers, slacks, shorts, jackets,
vests, shirts, blouses, sweaters, tops, skirts, jumpers, caps, hats, socks, shoes, suspenders,
belts and bandannas) for the registration of the trademark, "LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN."
On January 5, 2007, respondent’s application was published in the Intellectual Property

Philippines' Electronic Gazette for Trademarks.
Petitioner, Emerald, opposed the application of respondent because:
1. The approval of the application will violate the exclusive use of its marks, "DOUBLE
REVERSIBLE WA VE LINE," and "DOUBLE CURVE LINES," which it has been using
on a line of clothing apparel since October 1, 1973 and 1980.
2. Section 123.l (d) of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property
Code (IPC), will likewise be breached because the "LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN' is
confusingly similar or identical to the "DOUBLE CURVE LINES' previously registered in
Emerald's name.
Respondent’s counter-argument:
1. It is the owner and prior user of "LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN."
2. it initially used the said mark on February 18, 1946, and registered the same in the
United States of America (USA) on April 10, 1984.
3. The mark has been commercially advertised and used all over the world as well.
IPO's Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs denied respondent’s application.
Despite the foregoing, the IPO's DG and CA proceeded to resolve the case unmindful of the
pending applications for the registration of "DOUBLE CURVE LINES'' and "DOUBLE
REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE' previously filed by Emerald, Hence, the appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION has the rights
over the registration of the marks "DOUBLE CURVE LINES' and "DOUBLE REVERSIBLE
WAVE LINE' as against H.D. Lee's "OGIVE CURVE DESIGN."
Ruling:
Yes. The instant petition is granted, Emerald Garment Manufacturing has rights over the
registration of the marks "DOUBLE CURVE LINES' and "DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE'.
Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution, of the
Court of Appeals dated April 8, 2013 and January 6, 2014, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No.
126253, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The H.D. Lee Company, Inc.'s application for the
registration of the mark "LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN' is DENIED.
Ratio of the court:
The instant petition is impressed with merit. The reason for this is that litigation must end and
terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient
administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not
deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must guard against any scheme calculated to bring
about that result and must frown upon any attempt to prolong the controversies. The Court also
emphatically instructs anent the concept and application of res judicata, viz.:"a final judgment or
decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties
or their privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the former suit." The
elements for res judicata to apply are as follows: (a) the former judgment was final; (b) the court
that rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) the judgment was
based on the merits; and (d) between the first and the second actions, there was an identity of
parties, subject matters, and causes of action.
H.D. Lee argues that the principle of conclusiveness of judgment does not apply since no
identity of issue exists between the instant petition, on one hand, and G.R. No. 195415, on the
other. The Court finds the foregoing untenable as the issues all point to the registrability of the
confusingly similar marks "DOUBLE CURVE LINES," "DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE,"
and "OGIVE CURVE DESIGN." Further, H.D. Lee's claim that the instant petition involves the
mark "LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN' and not "OGIVE CURVE DESIGN' is specious and a
clear attempt to engage into hair-splitting distinctions. A thorough examination of the pleadings
submitted by H.D. Lee itself shows that indeed, the focus is the "OGIVE CURVE DESIGN,"
which remains to be the dominant feature of the mark sought to be registered.
The Court needs to stress that in G.R. No. 195415 and Inter Partes Case No. 3498 before the
IPO, Emerald had already established with finality its rights over the registration of the marks
"DOUBLE CURVE LINES' and "DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE' as against H.D. Lee's
"OGIVE CURVE DESIGN."

Emerald vs. HD Lee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emerald vs. HD Lee

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emerald vs. HD Lee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR No.

210693; June 7, 2017

Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corp. vs. The H.D. Lee Company

On January 5, 2007, respondent’s application was published in the Intellectual Property

Petitioner, Emerald, opposed the application of respondent because:

IPO's Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs denied respondent’s application.

Ratio of the court:

You might also like