Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation vs. The

2/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826

G.R. No. 210693. June 7, 2017.*

EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE H.D. LEE
COMPANY, INC., respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Res Judicata; 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.”—The Court also
emphatically instructs anent the concept and application of res
judicata, viz.: 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.” 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. Res judicata
embraces two concepts: (1) bar by prior judgment and (2)
conclusiveness of judgment. Bar by prior judgment exists “when,
as between the first case where the judgment was rendered and
the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of
parties, subject matter, and causes of action.” On the other hand,
the concept of conclusiveness of judgment 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.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Sioson, Sioson & Associates for petitioner.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168eae488601e4bdbc3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/20
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.

600
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation vs. The
H.D. Lee Company, Inc.
Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for

respondent.
RESOLUTION

REYES, J.:

Before the Court is the Petition for Review on
Certiorari1 filed by Emerald Garment Manufacturing
Corporation (Emerald) against The H.D. Lee Company, Inc.
(H.D. Lee) to assail the Decision2 and Resolution3 of the
Court of Appeals (CA), dated April 8, 2013 and January 6,
2014, respectively, in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 126253. The CA
reversed the Decision4 dated August 10, 2012, of the
Intellectual Property Office’s (IPO) then Director General
Ricardo R. Blancaflor (DG Blancaflor) in Inter Partes Case
No. 14-2007-00054, approving H.D. Lee’s application for
registration of the trademark “LEE & OGIVE CURVE
DESIGN.”

Antecedents

On December 21, 2001, H.D. Lee filed before the IPO an
application for the registration of the trademark, “LEE &
OGIVE CURVE DESIGN.” H.D. Lee claimed that the said
mark was first used in the Philippines on October 31, 1996.
Relative thereto, Application No. 4-2201-009602, on outer
clothing categorized under Class 25, which includes jeans,
casual pants, trousers, slacks, shorts, jackets, vests, shirts,
blouses, sweaters, tops, skirts, jumpers, caps, hats, socks,
shoes, suspenders, belts and bandannas, was filed. Within
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 43-107.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, with Associate

Justices Rebecca L. De Guia-Salvador and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.,
concurring; id., at pp. 17-34.
3 Id., at pp. 36-41.
4 Id., at pp. 323-332.

601
VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 601

three years from the filing of the application, H.D. Lee

submitted to the IPO a Declaration of Actual Use of the
mark.5
H.D. Lee’s application was published in the Intellectual
Property Philippines’ Electronic Gazette for Trademarks,
which was belatedly released on January 5, 2007.6
Emerald opposed H.D. Lee’s application; hence, Inter
Partes Case No. 14-2007-00054 arose. Emerald argued that
the approval of the application will violate the exclusive
use of its marks, “DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE,”
and “DOUBLE CURVE LINES,” which it has been using
on a line of clothing apparel since October 1, 19737 and
1980, respectively. Further, Section 123.1(d)8 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.9
Refuting Emerald’s opposition, H.D. Lee insisted that it
is the owner and prior user of “LEE & OGIVE CURVE
DESIGN.” H.D. Lee maintained that it initially used the
said
_______________
5 Id., at p. 18.
6 Please see the Decision dated February 27, 2009 of the IPO’s Bureau
of Legal Affairs, id., at p. 280.
7 Please see CA Decision dated September 29, 2010 in C.A.-G.R. S.P.
No. 105537; Rollo (G.R. No. 195415), pp. 10-29.
8 Sec. 123. Registrability.—123.1. A mark cannot be registered if it:
x x x x
(d) Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different

proprietor or a mark with an earlier filing or priority date, in respect of:
(i) The same goods or services, or
(ii) Closely related goods or services, or
(iii) If it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or
cause confusion;
x x x x
9 Rollo, p. 280.

602

mark on February 18, 1946, and registered the same in the

United States of America (USA) on April 10, 1984 under
Registration No. 1,273,602. The mark has been
commercially advertised and used all over the world as
well.10

Decision of the IPO’s Director
of the Bureau of Legal Affairs

On February 27, 2009, the then Director of Bureau of
Legal Affairs (BLA), Atty. Estrellita Beltran Abelardo
(Atty. Abelardo), denied H.D. Lee’s application. In its
Decision,11 Atty. Abelardo explained that H.D. Lee
established neither its ownership of the mark “LEE &
OGIVE CURVE DESIGN’’ nor its international reputation,
viz.:
The evidence on record disclose that on December 21, 2001,

when [H.D. Lee] filed Application No. 4-2001-009602, [Emerald’s]
Application Serial No. 4-65682 for the reregistration of the mark
“DOUBLE CURVE LINES” was already pending as it was filed
as early as September 6, 1988 x x x. In addition, long before
December 21, 2001, [Emerald] adopted and has been using in
commerce since January 8, 1980 the trademark “DOUBLE
CURVE LINES” together with its other registered marks x x x
up to the present x x x. Thus[,] pursuant to Section 2-A of
Republic Act No. 166,12 as amended, the law then in force and
effect, [Emerald] has become the owner of the mark “DOUBLE
CURVE LINES” through continuous commercial use thereof. On
May 5, 1981, said “DOUBLE CURVE LINES” was registered in

favor of [Emerald] in the Supplemental Register under
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 18-19.

11 Id., at pp. 280-292.
12 AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGISTRATION AND PROTECTION OF
TRADEMARKS, TRADE NAMES AND SERVICE-MARKS, DEFINING UNFAIR COMPETITION

AND FALSE MARKING AND PROVIDING REMEDIES AGAINST THE SAME, AND FORMER
PURPOSES. Approved on June 20, 1947.

603
VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 603

Registration No. 5513 x x x, and on May 31, 1982, in the Principal
Register under Registration N[o]. 30810 x x x.
x x x x
The evidence on record also discloses that on December 21,
2001, when [H.D. Lee] filed its opposed application, [Emerald’s]
Application Serial No. 70497 for the registration of the mark
DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE was also pending, the
same having been filed on January 8, 1990 x x x. In addition, long
before December 21, 2001, [Emerald] adopted and has been using
in commerce since October 1, 1973, the trademark “DOUBLE
REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE[,]” together with its other
registered marks x x x, up to the present x x x. Thus, pursuant to
Section 2-A of Republic Act No. 166, as amended, the law then in
force and effect, [Emerald] has become the owner of the mark
“DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE” through continuous
commercial use thereof.
x x x x
The near resemblance or confusing similarity between the
competing marks of the parties is further heightened by the fact
that both marks are used on identical goods, particularly, on jeans
and pants falling under Class 25.
x x x x
Moreover, it is a fundamental principle in Philippine
Trademark Law that only the owner of a trademark is entitled to
register a mark in his[/her]/its name and that the actual use in
commerce in the Philippines is a prerequisite to the acquisition of
ownership over a trademark. The evidence on record clearly and
convincingly shows (sic), that [Emerald] adopted and has been

using the mark DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE since
October 1, 1973 x x x and the mark DOUBLE CURVE LINES
since January 8, 1980 x x x. Although [H.D. Lee] claimed in its
Answer that it first used the LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGNB
[sic] trademark in the [USA] on or about February 18, 1946 x x x,
it did not present any evidence to prove such claim of first use.
The

604

evidence presented by [H.D. Lee] shows that it entered into a

License Agreement with Authentic American Apparel, Inc., only
on January 1, 1996 x x x and its yearly sales reports started only
from October 1996 x x x.
[H.D. Lee] also claimed in its Answer that it registered its LEE
& OGIVE CURVE DESIGN mark in the [USA] on April 10, 1984
under Registration No. 1,273,602 x x x. [H.D. Lee], however,
failed to submit a duly certified and authenticated copy of its
certificate of registration for Registration No. 1,273,602. In fact,
[H.D. Lee] did not submit any certified and authenticated
certificate of registration of its mark LEE & OGIVE CURVE
DESIGN issued anywhere else. x x x.
x x x x
Examination of the documentary evidence submitted by [H.D.
Lee] will show that it did not submit any certified and
authenticated certificate of registration of its mark anywhere else
in the world; likewise, it did not submit any proof of use of its
mark outside of the Philippines, while its use in the Philippines
appears to have started only in October 1996 x x x, twenty[-]three
(23) years after [Emerald] started using its DOUBLE
REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE (Back Pocket Design) on
October 1, 1973 x x x. [H.D. Lee] did not submit any proof of
having promoted and advertised its mark outside the Philippines,
while in the Philippines[,] x x x it started preparing its yearly
advertising expenditures only on January 2000 x x x. None of its
advertising clippings submitted in evidence appeared before 2003
x x x.13 (Citations omitted, underlining ours and emphasis in the
original)
_______________
13 Rollo, pp. 288-292.

605
VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 605

Decision of the IPO’s DG

On appeal, DG Blancaflor rendered on August 10, 2012
a Decision14 reversing the findings of Atty. Abelardo based
on the grounds cited below:
[H.D. Lee] has established by substantial evidence that it is the

owner of LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN. It has adduced
evidence showing that it has registered and/or applied in 115
countries around the world the mark LEE & OGIVE CURVE
DESIGN and that it secured a certificate of registration for this
mark in the [USA] on April 1984. [H.D. Lee] also submitted proof
of its advertising activities and sales invoices.
That [Emerald] has trademark applications and/or
registrations in the Philippines on marks similar to [H.D. Lee]
and which were filed and/or registered earlier than [H.D. Lee’s]
trademark application is not sufficient to overcome the pieces of
evidence proving [H.D. Lee’s] ownership of LEE & OGIVE
CURVE DESIGN. It is not the application or the registration that
confers ownership of a mark but it is the ownership thereof that
confers the right to registration.
Moreover, [H.D. Lee] has shown that LEE & OGIVE CURVE
DESIGN is a well-known mark. x x x
x x x x
[H.D. Lee’s] pieces of evidence satisfy a combination of the
criteria x x x such as the duration, extent and geographical area
of any use of the mark, the extent to which the mark has been
registered in the world, and the extent to which the mark has
been used in the world. [H.D. Lee] cited the over 100 countries
where it has registered and/or applied for the registration of LEE
& OGIVE CURVE DESIGN. The affidavits of Helen L. Winslow
and Wilfred T. Siy explained the long, continuous and global use
of [H.D. Lee’s] mark. These pieces of
_______________
14 Id., at pp. 323-332.

606

evidence are sufficient enough to consider [H.D. Lee’s] mark as

well-known internationally and in the Philippines.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the records which explained
how [Emerald] came to use a highly distinctive sign such as a
“Back Pocket Design” or the “Double Curve Lines” which are
identical or confusingly similar to the well-known mark LEE &
OGIVE CURVE DESIGN. The absence of any explanation on how
[Emerald] conceived these marks gives credence to the position
that [H.D. Lee] is the owner and creator of LEE & OGIVE
CURVE DESIGN and is, therefore, entitled to the registration of
this mark.15 (Citations omitted and underlining ours)
Ruling of the CA

Undaunted, Emerald filed a petition for review16 under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which the CA denied in the
herein assailed decision.17
According to the CA, H.D. Lee substantially complied
with the procedural requirements in filing before the IPO a
petition for registration of the mark “LEE & OGIVE
CURVE DESIGN.”
Further, the CA considered the following factors in H.D.
Lee’s favor: (1) while the mark “LEE & OGIVE CURVE
DESIGN” is registered only in India and Greece, with
pending application in the Philippines, the “OGIVE
CURVE DESIGN” is registered and/or applied for
registration in about 100 countries;18 (2) the inconsistent
dates, to wit, 1946 and 1949, which H.D. Lee claimed as
the year when it initially used the mark “LEE & OGIVE
CURVE DESIGN,” will not affect its position as being the
first and prior user thereof for at least 20 years
_______________
15 Id., at pp. 331-332.

16 Id., at pp. 333-388.
17 Id., at pp. 17-34.
18 Id., at p. 25.

607
VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 607

before Emerald utilized the marks “DOUBLE

REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE” and “DOUBLE CURVE
LINES” in 1973 and 1980, respectively;19 (3) registration in
the Principal Register is limited to the actual owner of the
trademark, hence, the Certificate of Registration issued to
Emerald by the IPO on May 31, 1982 covering the mark
“DOUBLE CURVE LINES,” which predated the
registration in the USA of the mark “OGIVE CURVE
DESIGN’’ on April 10, 1984, merely gave rise to a prima
facie but rebuttable proof of registrant’s ownership of a
mark;20 (4) even if the mark “LEE & OGIVE CURVE
DESIGN” is not locally registered, it is entitled to
protection as a well-known brand under the IPC and
international treaties entered into by the Philippines;21 (5)
H.D. Lee cannot be blamed regarding the confusing
similarity between the marks “DOUBLE REVERSIBLE
WAVE LINE” and “OGIVE CURVE DESIGN’’ considering
that it has been using the latter design for at least two
decades earlier than Emerald;22 and (6) it is of judicial
notice that in the 1950s movie, “Rebel Without a Cause,”
James Dean wore H.D. Lee’s jeans with the “OGIVE
CURVE DESIGN’’ sewn in the back pockets.23
Emerald moved for reconsideration, pointing out that in
G.R. No. 195415,24 the Court issued Resolutions, dated
November 28, 201225 and January 28, 2013,26 which denied
with finality H.D. Lee’s opposition against Emerald’s
registration of the mark “DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE
LINE.” In the Resolution dated November 28, 2012, the
Court’s reasons were unequivocal, viz.:
_______________
19 Id., at p. 30.
20 Id., at pp. 30-31.
21 Id., at p. 31.
22 Id., at p. 32.
23 Id.
24 H. D. Lee v. Emerald.
25 Rollo, pp. 198-199.
26 Id., at pp. 436-437.

608

First, the evidence proferred by [Emerald] sufficiently proves

that it has been actually using the mark “DOUBLE
REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE (Back Pocket Design)” since
October 1973. The sales invoices established actual commercial
use of the mark more than two months prior to [Emerald’s]
application for its registration in 1990.
Second, [H.D. Lee] was not able to prove that the mark
“OGIVE CURVE DEVICE” was well known
internationally and in the Philippines at the time of the filing of
[Emerald’s] application for registration. For a trademark to be
protected, the same must be “well-known” in the country where
protection is sought. Such is not the case here, since the sale of
garments in the Philippines bearing [H.D. Lee’s] mark “OGIVE
CURVE DEVICE” began only in 1996. Prior to said date, there
was no substantial evidence proving commercial use of goods
bearing the mark in the Philippines.27

In the herein assailed Resolution28 dated January 6,
2014, the CA denied Emerald’s motion for reconsideration.
According to the CA, it was belatedly notified of the Court’s
Resolutions dated November 28, 2012 and January 28,
2013 in G.R. No. 195415 only on April 10, 2013.29 Further,
even if the aforementioned resolutions were promptly
brought to the CA’s attention, the rule on “conclusiveness of
judgment” still finds no application. In G.R. No. 195415,
the issue was the non-registrability of Emerald’s mark
“DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE” based on the
opposer H.D. Lee’s claim that “OGIVE CURVE DESIGN” is
internationally well-known and legally protected by the
Paris Convention and other pertinent trademark laws. The
issues, which were resolved, centered on the goodwill and
prior use of Emerald’s mark in the Philippines.30 On
_______________
27 Id., at p. 198.
28 Id., at pp. 36-41.

29 Id., at p. 37.
30 Id., at p. 38.

609
VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 609

the other hand, in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 12625, from which the
petition now before the Court arose, the issue was the non-
registrability of H.D. Lee’s mark “LEE & OGIVE CURVE
DESIGN” for being confusingly similar to the marks
“DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE” and “DOUBLE
CURVE LINES,” which are registered in Emerald’s name.
The focal issue is “LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN’s”
alleged international reputation, hence, the dispensability
of its prior use in the Philippines.31

The Proceedings Before the Court

In the instant petition for review on certiorari,32
Emerald argues that the herein assailed decision and
resolution are in conflict with the final and executory
dispositions rendered in G.R. No. 195415. The Court
already upheld the registration of Emerald’s mark
“DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE (Back Pocket
Design),” and an Entry of Judgment33 was thereafter
recorded on March 20, 2013.34 Further, Emerald’s prior
application for the registration of its mark “DOUBLE
CURVE LINES’’35 had likewise been resolved with finality
by the IPO DG on June 5, 2008, and the corresponding
Entry of Judgment was recorded on October 21, 2008.36
Hence, the principle of conclusiveness of judgment under
Rule 39, Section 47(b) and (c)37 of the Rules of Court
applies. The issues of confusing
_______________
31 Id., at pp. 38-39.

32 Id., at pp. 43-107.
33 Id., at pp. 202-203.
34 Id., at p. 60.
35 Inter Partes Case No. 3498 before the IPO.
36 Rollo, pp. 54, 79.

37 Sec. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders.—The effect of a
judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:
x x x x

610

similarity between the marks involved herein and their

prior use had been determined with finality by the Court
and the IPO DG. The same issues can no longer be raised
before the CA in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 126253 from which the
instant petition arose.
Repetitive as it may be, in G.R. No. 195415, the Court
had adjudged that Emerald had prior actual use in the
Philippines of the mark “DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE
LINE (Back Pocket Design)” since October of 1973. In Inter
Partes Case No. 3498, the IPO DG had ruled that Emerald
started using the mark “DOUBLE CURVE LINES” on
January 8, 1980. On the other hand, H.D. Lee initially sold
in the Philippines garments with the mark “OGIVE
CURVE DEVICE” only in 1996, and filed an application for
the said mark in the USA on November 9, 1981.38
Emerald likewise emphasizes the following: (1) on
January 19, 1990, H.D Lee applied for the registration of
the mark “OGIVE CURVE DESIGN,” but the same was
abandoned with finality as indicated in the IPO’s website;39
(2) contrary to H.D. Lee’s representations, the mark “LEE
& OGIVE CURVE DESIGN” is not registered in the USA,
its home country, as USA Registration No. 1,273,602 issued
on April 10, 1984 merely
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect
to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that
could have been missed in relation thereto, conclusive between
the parties and their successors-in-interest, by title subsequent to
the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating
for the same thing and under the same title and in the same
capacity; and
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their
successors-in-interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged
in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to

have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily
included therein or necessary thereto.
38 Rollo, pp. 72-75.
39 Id., at pp. 61, 144.

611
VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 611

covers the mark “OGIVE CURVE DESIGN”;40 (3) the mark

“LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN” was only registered in
Greece and India in 1996, while in other countries, the
pending applications for registration pertain to “OGIVE
CURVE DESIGN”;41 and (4) in the Declaration of Actual
Use filed before the IPO on May 13, 2002, H.D. Lee
indicated that it first used the mark “LEE & OGIVE
CURVE DESIGN” in the Philippines only on October 31,
1996.42
In the Resolution43 dated March 24, 2014, the Court
initially denied the instant petition for failure to
sufficiently show any reversible error committed by the CA.
Emerald moved for reconsideration44 primarily anchored
on the argument that the non-registrability of H.D. Lee’s
mark “LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN” is a foregone
conclusion in view of the finality of the Resolution issued
by the Court relative to the mark “DOUBLE REVERSIBLE
WAVE LINE (Back Pocket Design)” in G.R. No. 195415.
It was further argued that “OGIVE CURVE DESIGN,”
being the dominant feature of the mark “LEE & OGIVE
CURVE DESIGN,” can no longer be registered by H.D. Lee
due to its confusing similarity to Emerald’s “DOUBLE
REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE (Back Pocket Design)” and
“DOUBLE CURVE LINES.” Section 123.1(d) of the IPC
precludes registration of a mark identical with another
with an earlier filing or priority date.45
Emerald concluded that the principle of conclusiveness
of judgment applies. The Court’s disposition in G.R. No.
195415 and the IPO’s ruling in Inter Partes Case No. 3498,
both of
_______________
40 Id., at p. 91.
41 Id., at p. 90.
42 Id., at p. 92.
43 Id., at p. 562.
44 Id., at pp. 563-580.
45 Id., at pp. 571-572.

612

which had become final and executory, proscribe H.D. Lee

from further pursuing the registration of the mark “LEE &
OGIVE CURVE DESIGN.”46
In the Comment47 on the Motion for Reconsideration,
H.D. Lee averred that Emerald merely reiterated the
arguments raised in the petition, which had already been
judiciously resolved by the Court.48 Further, there exists no
identity of issues raised in G.R. No. 195415, on one hand,
and in the instant petition, on the other. In G.R. No.
195415, the issue was the non-registrability of the mark
“DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE” in view of the
alleged international use and well-renowned character of
the mark “OGIVE CURVE DESIGN” In the instant
petition, the issue is the non-registrability of the mark
“LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN,” which has confusing
similarity with the already registered marks “DOUBLE
CURVE LINES’’ and “DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE
LINE.”49
In its Reply,50 Emerald insisted that the instant petition
still involves the issue of the confusing similarity between
“OGIVE CURVE DESIGN,” on one hand, and “DOUBLE
REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE” and “DOUBLE CURVE
LINES,” on the other. While H.D. Lee claims that the issue
herein is the registrability of “LEE & OGIVE CURVE
DESIGN,” the dominant feature of the mark sought to be
registered remains to be the “OGIVE CURVE DESIGN.”
The latter had been among the foci of G.R. No. 195415.
Moreover, “LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN” is a
composite mark, the parts of which can be registered
separately. H.D. Lee already registered “LEE” in its name,
but it abandoned the application to register “OGIVE
CURVE DESIGN” which was filed before the IPO on
_______________
46 Id., at pp. 572-575.

47 Id., at pp. 802-810.
48 Id., at p. 803.
49 Id., at p. 805.
50 Id., at pp. 817-827.

613
VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 613

January 19, 1990.51 Emerald also stressed anew that on

April 4, 2013, before the promulgation of the herein
assailed Decision on April 8, 2013, the CA had been
furnished with copies of the Court’s Resolutions dated
November 28, 2013 and January 28, 2014 in G.R. No.
195415.52
On November 28, 2016, the Court issued a Resolution53
reinstating the instant petition to afford the contending
parties ample opportunities to argue their respective
stances.
In its Comment54 on the instant petition, H.D. Lee once
again stresses the lack of identity between the facts and
issues presented herein with those resolved in G.R. No.
195415 and Inter Partes Case No. 3498. H.D. Lee posits
that G.R. No. 195415 and Inter Partes Case No. 3498 dealt
with the registrability of the mark “OGIVE CURVE
DESIGN,” which is distinct and separate from “LEE &
OGIVE CURVE DEVICE,” subject of the instant petition.55
Further, even granting for argument’s sake that by
reason of the similarities of the marks involved, the issues
are indeed identical, prior decisions cannot bar a contrary
disposition from being subsequently rendered as the result
would be the preclusion of any application for registration
of variants of a mark.56
By way of a Reply57 to H.D. Lee’s Comment, Emerald
reiterates its contentions already raised in the instant
petition.

Ruling of the Court

The instant petition is impressed with merit.
_______________
51 Id., at p. 820.
52 Id., at p. 822.
53 Id., at pp. 841-844.
54 Id., at pp. 847-855.
55 Id., at p. 849.
56 Id., at p. 850.
57 Id., at pp. 859-873.

614

The present controversy arose from H.D. Lee’s

application for the registration of the mark “LEE & OGIVE
CURVE DESIGN,” which was filed in 2001, 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).”
In 2009, then BLA Director Atty. Abelardo denied H.D.
Lee’s application for registration of “OGIVE CURVE
DESIGN” by reason of opposer Emerald’s proven prior
commercial use of “DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE.”
Back then, Atty. Abelardo already took note of the
pendency of Emerald’s two separate applications for the
registration of “DOUBLE CURVE LINES” and “DOUBLE
REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE.”58
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.
Meanwhile, in G.R. No. 195415, the Court, via the
Resolutions dated November 28, 2012 and January 28,
2013, made the following findings with finality: (1)
Emerald has been using the mark “DOUBLE
REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE (Back Pocket Design)” since
October 1973, with sales invoices proving actual
commercial use of the mark more than two months before
the application for its registration in 1990; (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).”59
On the other hand, Emerald’s application for the
registration of its mark “DOUBLE CURVE LINES” had
likewise been
_______________
58 Id., at pp. 288-289.

59 Id., at pp. 198-199, 436-437.

615
VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 615

resolved with finality by the IPO DG on June 5, 2008, and

the corresponding Entry of Judgment was recorded on
October 21, 2008.60
In Pryce Corporation v. China Banking Corporation,61
the Court declared that:
[W]ell-settled is the principle that a decision that has

acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and
may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification
is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and
whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the
highest court of the land.
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.62

The Court also emphatically instructs anent the concept
and application of res judicata, viz.:
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.”
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
_______________
60 Id., at p. 54.
61 727 Phil. 1; 716 SCRA 207 (2014).
62 Id., at p. 15; p. 222, citing Siy v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 505 Phil. 265, 274; 468 SCRA 154, 162 (2005).

616

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.
Res judicata embraces two concepts: (1) bar by prior judgment
and (2) conclusiveness of judgment.
Bar by prior judgment exists “when, as between the first case
where the judgment was rendered and the
second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of
parties, subject matter, and causes of action.”
On the other hand, the concept of conclusiveness of judgment
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.63 (Citations omitted)

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 RE-
_______________
63 Id., at pp. 11-12; p. 218.

617
VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 617

VERSIBLE WAVE LINE” as against H.D. Lee’s “OGIVE

CURVE DESIGN.”
As a final note, the courts are reminded to be constantly
vigilant in extending their judicial gaze to cases related to
the matters submitted for their resolution as to ensure
against judicial confusion and any seeming conflict in the
judiciary’s decisions.64
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
C.A.-G.R. S.P. 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.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Jardeleza and

Tijam, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

set aside.
Notes.—By 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.” (Serrano vs. Ambassador
Hotel, Inc., 690 SCRA 226 [2013])
For res judicata to apply there must among others be,
between the first and the second actions, identity of the
parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of
action. (Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. vs.
Cantos, 710 SCRA 514 [2013])

——o0o——
_______________
64 Id., at p. 27; p. 236.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation vs. The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation vs. The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation vs. The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

2/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826

G.R. No. 210693. June 7, 2017.*

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Res Judicata; According to

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for

1 Rollo, pp. 43-107.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, with Associate

VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 601

three years from the filing of the application, H.D. Lee

(d) Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different

602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

mark on February 18, 1946, and registered the same in the

The evidence on record disclose that on December 21, 2001,

May 5, 1981, said “DOUBLE CURVE LINES” was registered in

10 Id., at pp. 18-19.

TRADEMARKS, TRADE NAMES AND SERVICE-MARKS, DEFINING UNFAIR COMPETITION

VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 603

convincingly shows (sic), that [Emerald] adopted and has been

604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

evidence presented by [H.D. Lee] shows that it entered into a

13 Rollo, pp. 288-292.

VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 605

Decision of the IPO’s DG

[H.D. Lee] has established by substantial evidence that it is the

14 Id., at pp. 323-332.

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

evidence are sufficient enough to consider [H.D. Lee’s] mark as

15 Id., at pp. 331-332.

VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 607

before Emerald utilized the marks “DOUBLE

26 Id., at pp. 436-437.

608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

First, the evidence proferred by [Emerald] sufficiently proves

28 Id., at pp. 36-41.

VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 609

31 Id., at pp. 38-39.

36 Rollo, pp. 54, 79.

610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

similarity between the marks involved herein and their

in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to

VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 611

covers the mark “OGIVE CURVE DESIGN”;40 (3) the mark

612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

which had become final and executory, proscribe H.D. Lee

46 Id., at pp. 572-575.

VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 613

January 19, 1990.51 Emerald also stressed anew that on

614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The present controversy arose from H.D. Lee’s

58 Id., at pp. 288-289.

VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 615

resolved with finality by the IPO DG on June 5, 2008, and

[W]ell-settled is the principle that a decision that has

According to the doctrine of res judicata, “a final judgment or

conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later

616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

specious and a clear attempt to engage into hair-splitting

63 Id., at pp. 11-12; p. 218.

VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 617

VERSIBLE WAVE LINE” as against H.D. Lee’s “OGIVE

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Jardeleza and

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and