Lyceum vs. CA

LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, LYCEUM OF APARRI, LYCEUM OF

CABAGAN, LYCEUM OF CAMALANIUGAN et al.
GR No. 101897 5 March 1993
FACTS:
Lyceum of the Philippines (petitioner) is an educational institution duly registered with the SEC on
September 21, 1950.
In 1977, petitioner commenced before the SEC a proceeding against the Lyceum of Baguio to require it
to change its corporate name and to adopt another name not “similar or identical” with that of petitioner.
- Associate Commissioner Julio Sulit held that the corporate name of petitioner and that of the Lyceum of
Baguio, Inc. were substantially identical because of the presence of a "dominant" word, i.e., "Lyceum," the
name of the geographical location of the campus being the only word which distinguished one from the other
corporate name. The SEC also noted that petitioner had registered as a corporation ahead of the Lyceum of
Baguio, Inc. in point of time, and ordered the latter to change its name to another name "not similar or
identical [with]" the names of previously registered entities.
Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari of Lyceum of Baguio for lack of merit.
Then in 1984, petitioner instituted before the SEC a proceeding to compel the private respondents,
which are also educational institutions, to delete the word “Lyceum” from their corporate names and
permanently enjoin them from using “Lyceum” as part of their respective names.
The complaint was later withdrawn insofar as concerning the Lyceum of Malacanay and the Lyceum of
Marbel, for failure to serve summons upon these 2 entities. The case against the Liceum of Araullo was
dismissed when that school motu proprio change its corporate name to "Pamantasan ng Araullo."
The hearing officer rendered a decision sustaining the petitioner's claim to an exclusive right to use the
word “Lyceum.” BUT on appeal to the SEC En Banc, the decision was reversed. CA affirmed SEC En
Banc’s decision.
ISSUE:
1. Whether ‘Lyceum’ is a generic word which cannot be appropriated by the petitioner to the
exclusion of others.
2. Whether the word ‘Lyceum’ has acquired a secondary meaning in favor of the petitioner.
3. Whether the petitioner is infringed by respondent institutions’ corporate names.
RULING:
The Articles of Incorporation of a corporation must, among other things, set out the name of the
corporation. 6 Section 18 of the Corporation Code establishes a restrictive rule insofar as corporate
names are concerned.
We do not consider that the corporate names of private respondent institutions are "identical with, or
deceptively or confusingly similar" to that of the petitioner institution. True enough, the corporate names
of private respondent entities all carry the word "Lyceum" but confusion and deception are
effectively 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 the Lyceum of the
Philippines, or that the "Lyceum of Camalaniugan" would be confused with the Lyceum of the Philippines.
Etymologically, the word "Lyceum" is the Latin word for the Greek lykeion which in turn referred to a locality on
the river Ilissius in ancient Athens "comprising an enclosure dedicated to Apollo and adorned with fountains and
buildings erected by Pisistratus, Pericles and Lycurgus frequented by the youth for exercise and by the philosopher
Aristotle and his followers for teaching." 8 In time, the word "Lyceum" became associated with schools and other
institutions providing public lectures and concerts and public discussions. Thus today, the word "Lyceum" generally
refers to a school or an institution of learning. While the Latin word "lyceum" has been incorporated into the English
language, the word is also found in Spanish (liceo) and in French (lycee). As the Court of Appeals noted in its
Decision, Roman Catholic schools frequently use the term; e.g., "Liceo de Manila," "Liceo de Baleno" (in Baleno,
Masbate), "Liceo de Masbate," "Liceo de Albay." "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
(though this is a question of fact which we need not resolve) 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 unnatural to use this word to designate an entity which is organized and operating as
an educational institution.
It is claimed, however, by petitioner that the word "Lyceum" has acquired a secondary meaning in relation
to petitioner with the result that that word, although originally a generic, has become appropriable by
petitioner to the exclusion of other institutions like private respondents herein.
The doctrine of secondary meaning originated in the field of trademark law. Its application has,
however, been extended to corporate names sine the right to use a corporate name to the exclusion of
others is based upon the same principle which underlies the right to use a particular trademark or
tradename. In Philippine Nut Industry, Inc. v. Standard Brands, Inc., 11 the doctrine of secondary meaning
was elaborated in the following terms:
" . . . a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article
on the market, because geographically or otherwise descriptive, might nevertheless have been
used so long and so exclusively by one producer with reference to his article that, in that trade
and to that branch of the purchasing public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article
was his product."
(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 unnatural to use this word to designate an entity which is organized and
operating as an educational institution.
(2) NO. Under the doctrine of secondary meaning, a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive
appropriation with reference to an article in the market, because geographical or otherwise
descriptive might nevertheless have been used so long and so exclusively by one producer with
reference to this article that, in that trade and to that group of the purchasing public, the word or
phrase has come to mean that the article was his produce. With the foregoing as a yardstick, [we]
believe the appellant failed to satisfy the aforementioned requisites.
While the appellant may have proved that it had been using the word ‘Lyceum’ for a long
period of time, this fact alone did not amount to mean that the said word had acquired
secondary meaning in its 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 be used by other
educational institutions.
(3) NO. We do not consider that the corporate names of private respondent institutions are “identical
with, or deceptively or confusingly similar” to that of the petitioner institution. True enough, the
corporate names of private respondent entities all carry the word “Lyceum” but confusion and
deception are effectively 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 the
Lyceum of the Philippines, or that the “Lyceum of Camalaniugan” would be 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” as part of their corporate names.

Lyceum vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lyceum vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lyceum vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, LYCEUM OF APARRI, LYCEUM OF

You might also like