Posted: February 14, 2016 in case digests, corporation law, law, lawschool
Tags: , ,

G.R. No. 96161 February 21, 1992



  • Petitioner Philips Export B.V. (PEBV), aforeign corporation organized under the laws of the Netherlands, although not engaged in business here, is the registered owner of the trademarks PHILIPS and PHILIPS SHIELD EMBLEM .
  • Respondent Standard Philips Corporation (Standard Philips), on the other hand, was issued a Certificate of Registration by respondent Commission on 19 May 1982.
  • Petitioners filed a letter complaint with the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) asking for the cancellation of the word “PHILIPS” from Private Respondent’s corporate name.
  • As a result of Private Respondent’s refusal to amend its Articles of Incorporation, Petitioners filed with the SEC. Alleging, among others, that Private Respondent’s use of the word PHILIPS amounts to an infringement and clear violation of Petitioners’ exclusive right to use the same considering that both parties engage in the same business.
  • Private Respondent countered that Petitioner PEBV has no legal capacity to sue; that its use of its corporate name is not at all similar to Petitioners’ trademark PHILIPS when considered in its entirety; and that its products consisting of chain rollers, belts, bearings and cutting saw are grossly different from Petitioners’ electrical products.

ISSUE: WON petitioner may sue private respondent.


  • The Court declared that a corporation’s right to use its corporate and trade name is a property right, a rightin rem, which it may assert and protect against the world in the same manner as it may protect its tangible property, real or personal, against trespass or conversion. It is regarded, to a certain extent, as a property right and one which cannot be impaired or defeated by subsequent appropriation by another corporation in the same field.
  • A name is peculiarly important as necessary to the very existence of a corporation. Its name is one of its attributes, an element of its existence, and essential to its identity.
  • A corporation acquires its name by choice and need not select a name identical with or similar to one already appropriated by a senior corporation while an individual’s name is thrust upon him. A corporation can no more use a corporate name in violation of the rights of others than an individual can use his name legally acquired so as to mislead the public and injure another
  • Our own Corporation Code, in its Section 18, expressly provides that:

No corporate name may be allowed by the Securities and Exchange Commission if the proposed name is identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to that of any existing corporation or to any other name already protected by law or is patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing law.Where a change in a corporate name is approved, the commission shall issue an amended certificate of incorporation under the amended name.

The statutory prohibition cannot be any clearer. To come within its scope, two requisites must be proven, namely:

(1) that the complainant corporation acquired a prior right over the use of such corporate name; and

(2) the proposed name is either:

(a) identical; or

(b) deceptively or confusingly similar

to that of any existing corporation or to any other name already protected by law; or

(c) patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing law.

  • In this regard, there is no doubt with respect to Petitioners’ prior adoption of’ the name ”PHILIPS” as part of its corporate name. Petitioners Philips Electrical and Philips Industrial were incorporated on 29 August 1956 and 25 May 1956, respectively, while Respondent Standard Philips was issued a Certificate of Registration on 12 April 1982, twenty-six (26) years later (Rollo, p. 16). Petitioner PEBV has also used the trademark “PHILIPS” on electrical lamps of all types and their accessories since 30 September 1922.
  • The second requisite no less exists in this case. In determining the existence of confusing similarity in corporate names, the test is whether the similarity is such as to mislead a person, using ordinary care and discrimination. In so doing, the Court must look to the record as well as the names themselves. While the corporate names of Petitioners and Private Respondent are not identical, a reading of Petitioner’s corporate names, to wit: PHILIPS EXPORT B.V., PHILIPS ELECTRICAL LAMPS, INC. and PHILIPS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., inevitably leads one to conclude that “PHILIPS” is, indeed, the dominant word in that all the companies affiliated or associated with the principal corporation, PEBV, are known in the Philippines and abroad as the PHILIPS Group of Companies.
  • What is lost sight of, however, is that PHILIPS is a trademark or trade name which was registered as far back as 1922. Petitioners, therefore, have the exclusive right to its use which must be free from any infringement by similarity. A corporation has an exclusive right to the use of its name, which may be protected by injunction upon a principle similar to that upon which persons are protected in the use of trademarks and tradenames (18 C.J.S. 574). Such principle proceeds upon the theory that it is a fraud on the corporation which has acquired a right to that name and perhaps carried on its business thereunder, that another should attempt to use the same name, or the same name with a slight variation in such a way as to induce persons to deal with it in the belief that they are dealing with the corporation which has given a reputation to the name.


By: JB Gunay



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s