Scribd
Upload
58 views2 pages

Facts:: Diaz V. People FEBRUARY 18, 2013

The Court ruled that Diaz was not liable for trademark infringement against Levi's Philippines. While Diaz's jeans incorporated some similar design elements as Levi's 501 jeans, including arcuate designs, tabs, and leather patches, there was no likelihood of confusion between the trademarks. Diaz used his own registered trademark "LS Jeans Tailoring" and the jeans were distinguishable from Levi's 501 jeans in terms of where they were sold, their made-to-order nature, and labels inside the pockets. The consuming public could easily distinguish original Levi's 501 jeans from Diaz's jeans based on these differences.

Uploaded by

Broken
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views2 pages

Facts:: Diaz V. People FEBRUARY 18, 2013

The Court ruled that Diaz was not liable for trademark infringement against Levi's Philippines. While Diaz's jeans incorporated some similar design elements as Levi's 501 jeans, including arcuate designs, tabs, and leather patches, there was no likelihood of confusion between the trademarks. Diaz used his own registered trademark "LS Jeans Tailoring" and the jeans were distinguishable from Levi's 501 jeans in terms of where they were sold, their made-to-order nature, and labels inside the pockets. The consuming public could easily distinguish original Levi's 501 jeans from Diaz's jeans based on these differences.

Uploaded by

Broken
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

DIAZ V.

PEOPLE
FEBRUARY 18, 2013

FACTS: 
Levi Strauss Philippines, Inc. (Levi’s Philippines) is a licensee of Levi’s. After receiving
information that Diaz was selling counterfeit LEVI’S 501 jeans in his tailoring shops in Almanza
and Talon, Las Piñas City, Levi’s Philippines hired a private investigation group to verify the
information. Surveillance and the purchase of jeans from the tailoring shops of Diaz established
that the jeans bought from the tailoring shops of Diaz were counterfeit or imitations of LEVI’S
501. Levi’s Philippines then sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
for purposes of applying for a search warrant against Diaz to be served at his tailoring shops.
The search warrants were issued in due course. Armed with the search warrants, NBI agents
searched the tailoring shops of Diaz and seized several fake LEVI’S 501 jeans from them. Levi’s
Philippines claimed that it did not authorize the making and selling of the seized jeans; that each
of the jeans were mere imitations of genuine LEVI’S 501 jeans by each of them bearing the
registered trademarks, like the arcuate design, the tab, and the leather patch; and that the seized
jeans could be mistaken for original LEVI’S 501 jeans due to the placement of the arcuate, tab,
and two-horse leather patch. Diaz stated that he did not manufacture Levi’s jeans, and that he
used the label “LS Jeans Tailoring” in the jeans that he made and sold; that the label “LS Jeans
Tailoring” was registered with the Intellectual Property Office; that his shops received clothes
for sewing or repair; that his shops offered made-to-order jeans, whose styles or designs were
done in accordance with instructions of the customers; that since the time his shops began
operating in 1992, he had received no notice or warning regarding his operations; that the jeans
he produced were easily recognizable because the label “LS Jeans Tailoring,” and the names of
the customers were placed inside the pockets, and each of the jeans had an “LSJT” red tab; that
“LS” stood for “Latest Style;” and that the leather patch on his jeans had two buffaloes, not two
horses.
ISSUE: 
Whether or not Diaz is liable for trademark infringement.
RULING:
The Court held, through the application of the holistic test, that there was no likelihood of
confusion between the trademarks involved. 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 maongpants 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.
Diaz used the trademark “LS JEANS TAILORING” for the jeans he produced and sold in his
tailoring shops. His trademark was visually and aurally different from the trademark “LEVI
STRAUSS & CO” appearing on the patch of original jeans under the trademark LEVI’S 501.
The word “LS” could not be confused as a derivative from “LEVI STRAUSS” by virtue of the
“LS” being connected to the word “TAILORING”, thereby openly suggesting that the jeans
bearing the trademark “LS JEANS TAILORING” came or were bought from the tailoring shops
of Diaz, not from the malls or boutiques selling original LEVI’S 501 jeans to the consuming
public.
The prosecution also alleged that the accused copied the “two horse design” of the petitioner-
private complainant but the evidence will show that there was no such design in the seized jeans.
Instead, what is shown is “buffalo design.” Again, a horse and a buffalo are two different
animals which an ordinary customer can easily distinguish.
The prosecution further alleged that the red tab was copied by the accused. However, evidence
will show that the red tab used by the private complainant indicates the word “LEVI’S” while
that of the accused indicates the letters “LSJT” which means LS JEANS TAILORING. Again,
even an ordinary customer can distinguish the word LEVI’S from the letters LSJT.
In terms of classes of customers and channels of trade, the jeans products of the private
complainant and the accused cater to different classes of customers and flow through the
different channels of trade. The customers of the private complainant are mall goers belonging to
class A and B market group – while that of the accused are those who belong to class D and E
market who can only afford Php 300 for a pair of made-to-order pants.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy