Philips Export B.V. v. CA
Philips Export B.V. v. CA
Philips Export B.V. v. CA
CORPORATE NAME
PHILIPS EXPORT B.V., et al. v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.
G.R. No. 96161, 21 February 1992, SECOND DIVISION, (Melencio-Herrera,
J.)
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.
Philips Export B.V. (PEBV), a foreign 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. Philips Electrical Lamps,
Inc. (Philips Electrical, for brevity) and Philips Industrial Developments, Inc.
(Philips Industrial, for short), authorized users of the trademarks PHILIPS and
PHILIPS SHIELD EMBLEM, were incorporated on 29 August 1956 and 25 May
1956, respectively. All suchcorporations belong to the PHILIPS Group of
Companies.
Standard Philips Corporation (Standard Philips), on the other hand, was issued a
Certificate of Registration by SEC on 19 May 1982. PEBV filed a letter complaint
with the SEC asking for the cancellation of the word "PHILIPS" from Standard
Philips corporate name in view of the prior registration with the Bureau of Patents
of the trademark "PHILIPS" and the logo "PHILIPS SHIELD EMBLEM" in the name
of PEBV and the previous registration of Philips Electrical and Philips Industrial
with the SEC.
Standard Philips refused to amend its Articles of Incorporation. PEBV filed with the
SECa Petition praying for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction claiming
that the use of the word PHILIPS amounts to infringement and clear violation of
PEBVs exclusive right to use the same considering that both parties engage in the
same business. The SEC Hearing Officer ruled against the issuance of the writ as
there is no confusing similarity between PEBVs and Standard Philips' corporate
names as those of the PEBV contain at least two words different from that of the
Standard Philips. SEC en banc affirmed the dismissal. The CA dismissed PEBVs
petition ruling that Standard Philips' products consisting of chain rollers, belts,
bearings and cutting saw are unrelated and non-competing with PEBVs
products i.e. electrical lamps. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Should Standard Philips change its corporate name given that PEBV acquired
exclusive right over the word PHILIPS, hence, there is confusing similarity, if not
infringement, between the two corporate names?
RULING:
YES.
As early as Western Equipment and Supply Co. v. Reyes (1927), the Court
declared that a corporation's right to use its corporate and trade name is a