Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    Lyceum Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Rhose Azcelle Magaoay
    This document discusses a case between Lyceum of the Philippines University (petitioner) and several other schools using "Lyceum" in their names (private respondents). The petitioner argued that the other schools' names were deceptively similar and that it had exclusive rights to the term "Lyceum" through secondary meaning. The court ruled that 1) the other schools' names were not identical or deceptively similar due to geographic identifiers and 2) the petitioner did not have exclusive and long-standing use of "Lyceum" as it is a commonly used term for schools and one respondent predated the petitioner's use. Therefore, the doctrine of secondary meaning did not apply.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lyceum Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Rhose Azcelle Magaoay
    55 views1 page
    This document discusses a case between Lyceum of the Philippines University (petitioner) and several other schools using "Lyceum" in their names (private respondents). The petitioner argued that the other schools' names were deceptively similar and that it had exclusive rights to the term "Lyceum" through secondary meaning. The court ruled that 1) the other schools' names were not identical or deceptively similar due to geographic identifiers and 2) the petitioner did not have exclusive and long-standing use of "Lyceum" as it is a commonly used term for schools and one respondent predated the petitioner's use. Therefore, the doctrine of secondary meaning did not apply.

    Original Description:

    IPL

    Original Title

    Lyceum vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses a case between Lyceum of the Philippines University (petitioner) and several other schools using "Lyceum" in their names (private respondents). The petitioner argued that the other schools' names were deceptively similar and that it had exclusive rights to the term "Lyceum" through secondary meaning. The court ruled that 1) the other schools' names were not identical or deceptively similar due to geographic identifiers and 2) the petitioner did not have exclusive and long-standing use of "Lyceum" as it is a commonly used term for schools and one respondent predated the petitioner's use. Therefore, the doctrine of secondary meaning did not apply.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    55 views1 page

    Lyceum Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Rhose Azcelle Magaoay
    This document discusses a case between Lyceum of the Philippines University (petitioner) and several other schools using "Lyceum" in their names (private respondents). The petitioner argued that the other schools' names were deceptively similar and that it had exclusive rights to the term "Lyceum" through secondary meaning. The court ruled that 1) the other schools' names were not identical or deceptively similar due to geographic identifiers and 2) the petitioner did not have exclusive and long-standing use of "Lyceum" as it is a commonly used term for schools and one respondent predated the petitioner's use. Therefore, the doctrine of secondary meaning did not apply.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LYCEUM VS.

    CA
    Doctrine of Secondary meaning is a word of phrase originally incapable of exclusive
    appropriation, might nevertheless have been used so long and so exclusively by one
    producer with reference to his article that, in trade and to that branch of the purchasing
    public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his product.

    FACTS:
    Petitioner is an educational institution duly registered with the SEC since Sept 1950.
    Before the case at bar, Petitioner commenced a proceeding against Lyceum of Baguio
    with the SEC to require it to change its corporate name and adopt a new one not similar
    or identical to the Petitioner. SEC granted noting that there was substantial because of
    the dominant word Lyceum. CA and SC affirmed. Petitioner filed similar complaint
    against other schools and obtain a favorable decision from the hearing officer. On
    appeal, SEC En banc reversed the decision and held that the word Lyceum have not
    become so identified with the petitioner and that the use thereof will cause confusion to
    the general public.

    ISSUE:
    1. Whether or not the corporate names of the private respondents are identical with or
    deceptively similar to that of the petitioner.

    2. Whether or not the use by the petitioner of Lyceum in its corporate name has been
    for such length of time and with such exclusivity as to have become associated or
    identified with the petitioner institution in the mind of the general public (Doctrine of
    Secondary meaning).

    RULING: NO to both.
    True enough, the corporate names of the parties carry the word Lyceum but confusion
    and deception are precluded by the appending of geographic names. Lyceum generally
    refers to a school or an institution of learning and it is natural to use this word to
    designate an entity which is organized and operating as an educational institution.

    Doctrine of Secondary meaning is a word of phrase originally incapable of exclusive


    appropriation, might nevertheless have been used so long and so exclusively by one
    producer with reference to his article that, in trade and to that branch of the purchasing
    public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his product.

    Lyceum of the Philippines has not gained exclusive use of Lyceum by long passage of
    time. The number alone of the private respondents suggests strongly that the use of
    Lyceum has not been attended with the exclusivity essential for the applicability of the
    doctrine. It may be noted that one of the respondents Western Pangasinan Lyceum
    used such term 17 years before the petitioner registered with the SEC. Moreover, there
    may be other schools using the name but not registered with the SEC because they
    have not adopted the corporate form of organization.

    You might also like