This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-23 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| In Philips Export B.V. v. Court of Appeals,[34] this Court ruled that to fall within the prohibition of the law on the right to the exclusive use of a corporate name, 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) deceptive 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.[35] | |||||
|
2011-11-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Respondent argues that the present Petition should be dismissed on the ground that petitioner no longer existed as a corporation at the time said Petition was filed on February 1, 2007. Respondent points out that as of the date of the filing of the Petition, there is no such corporation that goes by the name NM Rothschild and Sons (Australia) Limited. Thus, according to respondent, the present Petition was not filed by a real party in interest, citing our ruling in Philips Export B.V. v. Court of Appeals,[10] wherein we held: A name is peculiarly important as necessary to the very existence of a corporation (American Steel Foundries vs. Robertson, 269 US 372, 70 L ed 317, 46 S Ct 160; Lauman vs. Lebanon Valley R. Co., 30 Pa 42; First National Bank vs. Huntington Distilling Co., 40 W Va 530, 23 SE 792). Its name is one of its attributes, an element of its existence, and essential to its identity (6 Fletcher [Perm Ed], pp. 3-4). The general rule as to corporations is that each corporation must have a name by which it is to sue and be sued and do all legal acts. The name of a corporation in this respect designates the corporation in the same manner as the name of an individual designates the person (Cincinnati Cooperage Co. vs. Bate, 96 Ky 356, 26 SW 538; Newport Mechanics Mfg. Co. vs. Starbird, 10 NH 123); and the right to use its corporate name is as much a part of the corporate franchise as any other privilege granted (Federal Secur. Co. vs. Federal Secur. Corp., 129 Or 375, 276 P 1100, 66 ALR 934; Paulino vs. Portuguese Beneficial Association, 18 RI 165, 26 A 36).[11] | |||||
|
2010-03-03 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Clearly, a trade name need not be registered with the IPO before an infringement suit may be filed by its owner against the owner of an infringing trademark. All that is required is that the trade name is previously used in trade or commerce in the Philippines.[11] | |||||