GR 132604; (March, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132604 ; March 6, 2002
Venancio Sambar, doing business under the name and style of CVS Garment Enterprises, petitioner, vs. Levi Strauss & Co., and Levi Strauss (Phil.), Inc., respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Levi Strauss & Co. and Levi Strauss (Phil.), Inc., owners and licensed users of the registered “arcuate” design trademark on jeans back pockets, demanded that petitioner Venancio Sambar’s CVS Garment Enterprises cease using a similar stitched design on its “Europress” jeans. Sambar claimed his design was different and was copyrighted. Respondents filed a complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition. After procedural delays involving service of summons and amendments to the complaint, the case proceeded. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction. CVS Garment and Sambar failed to appear at scheduled hearings to present evidence, leading the court to rule they waived this right.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s finding of trademark infringement and in ordering the cancellation of Sambar’s copyright registration and the award of damages.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. On the substantive issue, the Court found trademark infringement under Section 22 of the Trademark Law. The test is whether the defendant’s design is a colorable imitation likely to cause confusion. Comparing the “Europress” design with Levi’s registered arcuate mark, the Court found them substantially similar—both consist of two double arcs meeting in the middle on a jeans back pocket. This similarity is likely to deceive purchasers regarding the source of the goods. Sambar’s copyright registration over a similar design does not prevail over a prior registered trademark, as copyright does not confer the right to use the work if it infringes upon another’s intellectual property. The cancellation of the copyright registration was proper.
Regarding damages, the award of temperate and nominal damages was justified as respondents suffered pecuniary loss difficult to quantify precisely. Exemplary damages and attorney’s fees were also properly awarded due to petitioner’s evident bad faith in continuing the infringing activity despite demands to stop. Procedurally, the trial court correctly deemed petitioner to have waived his right to present evidence due to his and his counsel’s unjustified absence at the hearings, warranting judgment based on respondents’ evidence.