Scribd
Upload
132 views1 page

Emerald v. H.D. Lee

1) Emerald challenged the approval of H.D. Lee's application for trademark registration of "LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN", arguing that issues had already been resolved in Emerald's favor in previous cases regarding its own trademarks. 2) The Supreme Court had previously ruled that Emerald had been using similar marks since 1973, while H.D. Lee did not start selling in the Philippines until 1996, and that H.D. Lee failed to prove its mark was well-known before Emerald's application. 3) The Court ruled that the principle of conclusiveness of judgment applied, as there was identity of issues between the cases, and Emerald's rights over similar marks had already

Uploaded by

TimeePaglinawan
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
132 views1 page

Emerald v. H.D. Lee

1) Emerald challenged the approval of H.D. Lee's application for trademark registration of "LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN", arguing that issues had already been resolved in Emerald's favor in previous cases regarding its own trademarks. 2) The Supreme Court had previously ruled that Emerald had been using similar marks since 1973, while H.D. Lee did not start selling in the Philippines until 1996, and that H.D. Lee failed to prove its mark was well-known before Emerald's application. 3) The Court ruled that the principle of conclusiveness of judgment applied, as there was identity of issues between the cases, and Emerald's rights over similar marks had already

Uploaded by

TimeePaglinawan
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/ 1

SUBROGATION TO THE MARINE INSURED’S RIGHTS CANNOT OCCUR IN THE

ABSENCE OF TOTAL LOSS

Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation vs. H.D. Lee Company, Inc.


G.R. No. 210693; June 7, 2017
Reyes, J.

FACTS: In this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, petitioner Emerald Garment Manufacturing
Corporation (Emerald) challenges the decision of the CA approving private respondent H.D. Lee
Company, Inc. (H.D. Lee)’s application for registration of the trademark "LEE & OGIVE CURVE
DESIGN."

On December 21, 2001, H.D. Lee filed before the IPO an application for the registration of the
said trademark, pending the final resolution of Emerald's separate applications for the
registration of the marks "DOUBLE CURVE LINES" and "DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE
(Back Pocket Design)." Thereafter, the IPO's DG on August 10, 2012 and the CA on January 6,
2014 proceeded to resolve H.D. Lee’s application unmindful of the pending applications for the
registration of "DOUBLE CURVE LINES'' and "DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE” previously
filed by Emerald. Meanwhile, on Jun 5, 2008 in Inter Partes Case No. 3498, the IPO DG
resolved with finality Emerald's application for the registration of its mark "DOUBLE CURVE
LINES.” Moreover, in G.R. No. 195415, the SC, via the Resolutions dated November 28, 2012
and January 28, 2013, found with finality that: (1) Emerald has been using the mark "DOUBLE
REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE (Back Pocket Design)" since October 1973; (2) H.D. Lee's sale of its
garments in the Philippines only began in 1996; and (3) H.D. Lee failed to prove that the mark
"OGIVE CURVE DEVICE' was well-known locally and internationally at the time Emerald filed
its application for the registration of the mark "DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE (Back
Pocket Design)." H.D. Lee argues that the principle of conclusiveness of judgment does not
apply since no identity of issue exists between the instant petition and G.R. No. 195415.

ISSUE: Is H.D. Lee’s trademark application barred by the principle of conclusiveness of


judgment?

RULING: YES, because of the identity of issues between the instant petition and G.R. No.
195415.
According to the doctrine of res judicata, "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." Res judicata embraces two
concepts: (1) bar by prior judgment and (2) conclusiveness of judgment. The latter finds
application "when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and
adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction." This principle only needs identity
of parties and issues to apply.
Here, in G.R. No. 195415 before the SC 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." Furthermore, the issues in the instant petition and G.R. No. 195415
all point to the registrability of the confusingly similar marks "DOUBLE CURVE LINES,"
"DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE," and "OGIVE CURVE DESIGN."
Therefore, H.D. Lee’s trademark application is barred by the principle of conclusiveness
of judgment.

You might also like