Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CLINTON
APPARELLE, INC.
The petitioners anchor their legal right to the trademark on the Certificate of Registration
as well as under RA No. 8293 Section 147.1. This grants the owner of the registered
mark the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owners consent from
using in the course of trade identical or similar signs for goods or services which are
identical or similar to those in respect of which the trademark is registered if such use
results in a likelihood of confusion.
This case arose from the Complaint for Trademark Infringement, Injunction and
Damages filed by petitioners LEVIS STRAUSS & CO. and LEVI STRAUSS PHILIPPINE
INC. (LSPI) against respondent Clinton Apparelle, Inc. together with an alternative
defendant, Olympian Garments, Inc., before the RTC of Quezon City. The Complaint
alleged that LS & Co., a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware, USA, and engaged in the apparel business, is the owner by
prior adoption and use since 1986 of the internationally famous Dockers and Design
trademark. The Dockers and Design trademark was first used in the Philippines in or
about May 1988, by LSPI, a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale and
distribution of various products bearing trademarks owned by LS & Co. LS & Co. and
LSPI further alleged that they discovered the presence in the local market of jeans
under the brand name Paddocks using a device which is substantially, if not exactly,
similar to the Dockers and Design trademark without LS & Co.s consent. The
petitioners prayed for a TRO and writ of preliminary injunctions which the court granted
after the respondent failed to appear despite notice. Clinton Apparelle filed a Motion to
Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration in an Omnibus Order but this was denied for
lack of merit. Thus, Clinton Apparelle filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, assailing the orders of the trial
court. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondent and held that the trial court
did not follow the procedure required by law for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order, as Clinton Apparelle was not duly notified of the date of the summary hearing for
its issuance.
Thus, the Court of Appeals ruled that the TRO had been improperly issued. The
appellate court also held that such issuance is questionable for the petitioners failed to
sufficiently establish their material and substantial right to have the writ issued. In
addition, the Court of Appeals strongly believed that the implementation of the
questioned writ would effectively shut down the respondents business, which in its
opinion should not be sanctioned.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction by the trial
court was proper
2. Whether or not the CA erred in setting aside the orders of the trial court