November 20, 1990 Manila International Futures Clearing House, Inc. 19th Floor, Producers Bank Bldg.

Paseo de Roxas, Makati Attention : Mr. Enrique M. Zalamea, Jr. President Gentlemen : This refers to your letter dated August 30, 1990 objecting to the change of the corporate name of Madura Merchandise Futures, Inc. to Manila Futures and Development Corporation (MFDC) which was approved by the Commission on July 30, 1990. It is your view that the new corporate name might be confused by the public with the name of your corporation, the Manila International Futures Clearing House, Inc. (MIFCHI). cda In connection therewith, please be advised that the Commission finds no legal basis to require Manila Futures and Development Corporation to change anew its corporate name. There is no confusing similarity between the two corporate names since they differ in at least two different words which is in accordance with the SEC Guidelines in the Approval of Corporate and Partnership Names, dated September 7, 1977. Said Guidelines specifically states: ". . .. If the proposed name contains a word similar to a word already used as part of the firm name or style of a registered company, the proposed name must contain two other words different from the company already registered." (Emphasis supplied) The required two different words having been met, MFDC's corporate name may not be considered as confusingly similar with that of MIFCHI. Moreover, the nature and business of the corporations involved are also important factors bearing on the likelihood of deception from the use of similar names. The objectives of the two corporations are different. The primary purpose of the former corporation as stated in its articles of incorporation is to engage in the business of brokers and dealers in commodity/commodities futures contracts, while that of the latter is to act as a commercial clearing house for the sale and purchase of commodity futures. Considering that said corporations have different objectives, we find no ground for confusion to result in their identity. The use of corporate name cannot be enjoined merely because it resembles in part the name of another corporation. (John Palmer Co. vs. Palmer-McLellan Shoe Park Co.; 37 D.L.R. (con) 201, cited in Fletcher Vol. 6) The test is that confusion must be such as would exist in the mind of a person of ordinary

intelligence, and it is not sufficient that careless and indifferent readers of names would be confused as to the identity of corporations (Metal Craft Co. vs. Metalcraft Heater Cor., 255 Mich 642, 239 NW 364). A person of ordinary caution and prudence when he deals with a corporation does not merely rely on its corporate name but exercise reasonable and careful scrutiny in finding the identity of the corporation with which he is dealing or intends to deal with. Deceit or confusion therefore is quite remote. In the light of the foregoing, the Commission during its meeting on November 14, 1990 found no ground to sustain your objection and resolved to allow Manila Futures and Development Corporation to retain its present name. llcd (SGD.) RODOLFO L. SAMARISTA Associate Commissioner