GR 101897; (March, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 101897. March 5, 1993.
LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, LYCEUM OF APARRI, LYCEUM OF CABAGAN, LYCEUM OF CAMALANIUGAN, INC., LYCEUM OF LALLO, INC., LYCEUM OF TUAO, INC., BUHI LYCEUM, CENTRAL LYCEUM OF CATANDUANES, LYCEUM OF SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES, LYCEUM OF EASTERN MINDANAO, INC. and WESTERN PANGASINAN LYCEUM, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lyceum of the Philippines, Inc. registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on September 21, 1950. On February 24, 1984, it filed a proceeding before the SEC to compel the private respondents, which are also educational institutions, to delete the word “Lyceum” from their corporate names and to permanently enjoin them from using it. The SEC hearing officer ruled in favor of the petitioner, relying on a prior SEC case (against Lyceum of Baguio, Inc.) which held that “Lyceum” was a dominant word capable of appropriation. On appeal, the SEC En Banc reversed the decision, holding that the appending of geographic names to “Lyceum” sufficiently distinguished the schools and that the word had not acquired a secondary meaning exclusively identifying the petitioner. The Court of Appeals affirmed the SEC En Banc’s decision. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review.
ISSUE
Whether the corporate names of the private respondent institutions, which all include the word “Lyceum,” are identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to the corporate name of petitioner Lyceum of the Philippines, Inc., thereby violating Section 18 of the Corporation Code, and whether the petitioner has acquired an exclusive right to the word “Lyceum” under the doctrine of secondary meaning.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that:
1. The corporate names of the private respondents are not “identical with, or deceptively or confusingly similar” to that of the petitioner. While all names carry the word “Lyceum,” confusion and deception are effectively precluded by the appending of geographic names (e.g., “of Aparri,” “of Camalaniugan”) to the word “Lyceum.”
2. The petitioner failed to prove that the word “Lyceum” had acquired a secondary meaning, which requires proof of exclusive and long use such that the word has become identified with the petitioner’s institution in the public mind. The use of “Lyceum” by the petitioner was not exclusive, as evidenced by the number of other institutions using it, including Western Pangasinan Lyceum which registered shortly after the petitioner.
3. Corporate names must be evaluated in their entirety to determine if they are confusingly or deceptively similar. The mere presence of “Lyceum” in both names is insufficient. When the petitioner’s name is compared in full with the names of the private respondents, they are not reasonably regarded as identical or confusingly similar.
Thus, the petitioner has no legally enforceable exclusive right to the word “Lyceum,” and other institutions may use it as part of their corporate names provided the names, taken as a whole, are distinct.