Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 127 views

    Lyceum of The Philippines v. CA (G.R. No. 101897)

    Uploaded by

    sweet dude
    (1) The Supreme Court ruled that the word "Lyceum" is a generic term that cannot be exclusively appropriated by the petitioner. While the petitioner had used the term for a long time, it failed to prove that the term had acquired a secondary meaning exclusively referring to the petitioner. (2) The Court also found that the respondent institutions' use of "Lyceum" in their corporate names, such as "Lyceum of Aparri," was not identical or confusingly similar to the petitioner's name, "Lyceum of the Philippines." Appending a geographic location prevented confusion between the institutions. (3) Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to exclusive use of the word

    Copyright:

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

    Lyceum of The Philippines v. CA (G.R. No. 101897)

    Uploaded by

    sweet dude
    127 views1 page
    (1) The Supreme Court ruled that the word "Lyceum" is a generic term that cannot be exclusively appropriated by the petitioner. While the petitioner had used the term for a long time, it failed to prove that the term had acquired a secondary meaning exclusively referring to the petitioner. (2) The Court also found that the respondent institutions' use of "Lyceum" in their corporate names, such as "Lyceum of Aparri," was not identical or confusingly similar to the petitioner's name, "Lyceum of the Philippines." Appending a geographic location prevented confusion between the institutions. (3) Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to exclusive use of the word

    Original Description:

    IPL CASE

    Original Title

    Lyceum of the Philippines v 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?

    (1) The Supreme Court ruled that the word "Lyceum" is a generic term that cannot be exclusively appropriated by the petitioner. While the petitioner had used the term for a long time, it failed to prove that the term had acquired a secondary meaning exclusively referring to the petitioner. (2) The Court also found that the respondent institutions' use of "Lyceum" in their corporate names, such as "Lyceum of Aparri," was not identical or confusingly similar to the petitioner's name, "Lyceum of the Philippines." Appending a geographic location prevented confusion between the institutions. (3) Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to exclusive use of the word

    Copyright:

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

    Lyceum of The Philippines v. CA (G.R. No. 101897)

    Uploaded by

    sweet dude
    (1) The Supreme Court ruled that the word "Lyceum" is a generic term that cannot be exclusively appropriated by the petitioner. While the petitioner had used the term for a long time, it failed to prove that the term had acquired a secondary meaning exclusively referring to the petitioner. (2) The Court also found that the respondent institutions' use of "Lyceum" in their corporate names, such as "Lyceum of Aparri," was not identical or confusingly similar to the petitioner's name, "Lyceum of the Philippines." Appending a geographic location prevented confusion between the institutions. (3) Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to exclusive use of the word

    Copyright:

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

    Lyceum of the Philippines v. CA (G.R. No.

     101897) unnatural to use this word to designate an entity which is organized and
    Facts: operating as an educational institution.

    Petitioner Lyceum of the Philippines had commenced before the SEC a (2) NO. Under the doctrine of secondary meaning, a word or phrase originally
    proceeding against the Lyceum of Baguio to change its corporate name incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article in the market,
    alleging that the 2 names are substantially identical because of the word because geographical or otherwise descriptive might nevertheless have been
    ‘Lyceum’. SEC found for petitioner and the SC denied the consequent appeal used so long and so exclusively by one producer with reference to this article
    of Lyceum of Baguio in a resolution. Petitioner then basing its ground on the that, in that trade and to that group of the purchasing public, the word or
    resolution, wrote to all educational institutions which made use of the word phrase has come to mean that the article was his produce. With the
    ‘Lyceum’ as part of their corporate name to discontinue their use. When this foregoing as a yardstick, [we] believe the appellant failed to satisfy the
    recourse failed, petitioner moved before the SEC to enforce its exclusive use aforementioned requisites. While the appellant may have proved that it had
    of the word ‘Lyceum.’ Petitioner further claimed that the word ‘Lyceum’ has been using the word ‘Lyceum’ for a long period of time, this fact alone did not
    acquired a secondary meaning in its favor. The SEC Hearing Officer found amount to mean that the said word had acquired secondary meaning in its
    for petitioner. Both SE En Banc and CA ruled otherwise. favor because the appellant failed to prove that it had been using the same
    word all by itself to the exclusion of others. More so, there was no evidence
    presented to prove that confusion will surely arise if the same word were to
    Issues:
    be used by other educational institutions.

    (1) Whether or not ‘Lyceum’ is a generic word which cannot be appropriated (3) NO. We do not consider that the corporate names of private respondent
    by petitioner to the exclusion of others. institutions are “identical with, or deceptively or confusingly similar” to that of the
    petitioner institution. True enough, the corporate names of private respondent
    (2) Whether or not the word ‘Lyceum’ has acquired a secondary meaning in entities all carry the word “Lyceum” but confusion and deception are effectively
    favor of petitioner. precluded by the appending of geographic names to the word “Lyceum.” Thus, we
    do not believe that the “Lyceum of Aparri” can be mistaken by the general public for
    (3) Whether or not petitioner is infringed by respondent institutions’ corporate the Lyceum of the Philippines, or that the “Lyceum of Camalaniugan” would be
    names. confused with the Lyceum of the Philippines.  We conclude and so hold that
    petitioner institution is not entitled to a legally enforceable exclusive right to use the
    word “Lyceum” in its corporate name and that other institutions may use “Lyceum”
    Ruling: as part of their corporate names.

    (1) YES. “Lyceum” is in fact as generic in character as the word “university.”


    In the name of the petitioner, “Lyceum” appears to be a substitute for
    “university;” in other places, however, “Lyceum,” or “Liceo” or “Lycee”
    frequently denotes a secondary school or a college. It may be that the use of
    the word “Lyceum” may not yet be as widespread as the use of “university,”
    but it is clear that a not inconsiderable number of educational institutions
    have adopted “Lyceum” or “Liceo” as part of their corporate names. Since
    “Lyceum” or “Liceo” denotes a school or institution of learning, it is not

    You might also like