LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES

V.

LYCEUM OF APARRI, CABAGAN, CAMALANIUGAN, LALLO, TUAO, BUHI, CATANDUANES, SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES, EASTERN MINDANAO, & WESTERN PANGASINAN Facts: Lyceum PH is an educational institution registered with SEC on Sep 21 1950. On Feb 23 1984, Lyceum PH instituted proceedings with SEC to compel the respondents to delete the word Lyceum from their corporate names. The table shows the participation of the respondents and SEC registration date: Actively participated in the SEC proceedings Western Pangasinan Lyceum Oct 27 1950 Lyceum of Cabagan Oct 31 1962 Lyceum of Lallo March 26 1972 Lyceum of Aparri March 28 1972 Lyceum of Tuao March 28 1972 Lyceum of Camalaniugan March 28 1972 Declared in default (did not participate) Buhi Lyceum Lyceum of Eastern Mindanao

Central Lyceum of Catanduanes Lyceum of Southern PH

Issue:

Lyceum PH earlier filed the same proceeding against Lyceum Baguio. SEC Hearing Officer (Asso. Commissioner) held that the corporate names were identical in that the geographic location was the only distinguishing factor, and that Lyceum PH registered its corp name ahead of Baguio. It ordered Baguio to change its corp name. Baguio appealed to SC but was denied. Lyceum wrote all other educational institutions using Lyceum to drop it from their corp name. When it failed, Lyceum filed the case with SEC claiming its proprietary right to the word Lyceum. The SEC Hearing Officer relied on the ruling in the Baguio case and ordered them to change their corp name. Upon appeal to SEC En Banc, it reversed the decision. It did not consider the word Lyceum to have become so identified with Lyceum PH as to render the use of it by other institutions to cause confusion. SEC En Banc held that attaching the geographical location served to sufficiently distinguish the schools from one another, especially since the campus locations were physically remote from each other. Lyceum PH appealed to CA. CA affirmed SEC EBs order. Lyceum PH appealed to SC.

(1) WON use of the word Lyceum as part of the corp name of the respondents cause confusion (2) WON Lyceum as a generic word can be appropriated by Lyceum PH to the exclusion of others Held:

(1) NO. Sec 18 Corp Code provides that No corp name may be allowed by the SEC if the proposed name is identical/deceptively/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 laws. o The purpose is to avoid fraud upon the public, evasion of legal obligations and duties, and reduction of difficulties of administration and supervision over corporations. o Court held that the names are not identical, confusing or deceptive. Any confusion is precluded by the appending of the geographical location. (2) NO. Lyceum, which is originally a Greek word (Lykeion) referring to a locality on the river Illisius, is now as generic as the word university. It is used to denote a secondary school or college. o The doctrine of secondary meaning originated in the field of trademark law, and is now applicable to corporate names. This refers to a word or phrase referring to an article on the market, which was originally incapable of exclusive appropriation, but because it has been used so long and so exclusively by one producer with reference to his article, it has now come to mean (in trade and by the public) that the word/phrase was his product. o Court held the use of the word Lyceum by PH did not acquire secondary meaning. Lyceum PH has only proven that it has used said word as its corp name for a long time but that does not automatically give it secondary meaning. For one, Pangasinan Lyceum has also been using the word for 17 years prior to Lyceum PHs registration and the Roman Catholic Church has also used said word to name its schools (e.g.,. Liceo de Manila). Second, the fact that there are several institutions using the word Lyceum shows that Lyceum PH has not yet acquired exclusivity over the word. o Court stated that to determine whether a given corp name is identical or deceptively/confusingly similar with another entitys corporate name, it is not enough to ascertain the presence of Lyceum in both names. One must evaluate the corp names in their entirety. Petition is denied. CA decision affirmed.