La Víctima Niño, Niña o Adolescente ante el Proceso Penal:

SECTION 165.2. (a) Notwithstanding any laws or regulations providing for any obligation to register trade names, such names shall be protected, even prior to or without registration, against any unlawful act committed by third parties.

(b) In particular, any subsequent use of the trade name by a third party, whether as a trade name or a mark or collective mark, or any such use of a similar trade name or mark, likely to mislead the public, shall be deemed unlawful.

165.3. The remedies provided for in Sections 153 to 156 and Sections 166 and 167 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

165.4. Any change in the ownership of a trade name shall be made with the transfer of the enterprise or part thereof identified by that name. The provisions of Subsections 149.2 to 149.4 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

PHILIPS EXPORT B.V. vs. COURT OF APPEALS [G.R. No. 96161. February 21, 1992]

A corporation's right to use its corporate and trade name is a property right, a right in rem, which it may assert and protect against the world in the same manner as it may protect its tangible property, real or personal, against trespass or conversion. It is regarded, to a certain extent, as a property right and one which cannot be impaired or defeated by subsequent appropriation by another corporation in the same field.

A name is peculiarly important as necessary to the very existence of a corporation. Its name is one of its attributes, an element of its existence, and essential to its identity. 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; and the right to use its corporate name is as much a part of the corporate franchise as any other privilege granted. The right to the exclusive use of a corporate name with freedom from infringement by similarity is determined by priority of adoption.

In determining the existence of confusing similarity in corporate names, the test is whether the similarity is such as to mislead a person using ordinary care and discrimination. In so doing, the Court must look to the record as well as the names themselves. It is settled, however, that proof of actual confusion need not be shown. It suffices that confusion is probably or likely to occur.

The subsequent appropriator of the name or one confusingly similar thereto usually seeks an unfair advantage, a free ride on another's goodwill.

A corporation has an exclusive right to the use of its name, which may be protected by injunction upon a principle similar to that upon which persons are protected in the use of

trademarks and tradenames. Such principle proceeds upon the theory that it is a fraud on the corporation which has acquired a right to that name and perhaps carried on its business thereunder, that another should attempt to use the same name, or the same name with a slight variation in such a way as to induce persons to deal with it in the belief that they are dealing with the corporation which has given a reputation to the name.

ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION vs. SEC [G.R. No. L-54580. December 29, 1987]

The Court finds that the said amendment in the corporate name of petitioner is not in substantial compliance with the order of February 14, 1975. Indeed it is in contravention therewith. To repeat, the order was for the removal of the word "ARMCO" from the corporate name of the petitioner which it failed to do. And even if this change of corporate name was erroneously accepted and approved in the SEC it cannot thereby legalize nor change what is clearly unauthorized if not contemptuous act of petitioner in securing the registration of a new corporate name against the very order of the SEC of February 14, 1975. Certainly the said order of February 14, 1975 is not rendered functus oficio thereby. Had petitioner revealed at the time of the registration of its amended corporate name that there was the said order, the registration of the amended corporate name could not have been accepted and approved by the persons in-charge of the registration. The actuations in this respect of petitioner are far from regular much less in good faith.

ARMCO STEEL-PHILIPPINES, has not only an identical name but also a similar line of business, as shown above, as that of ARMCO STEEL-OHIO. People who are buying and using products bearing the trademark 'Armco' might be led to believe that such products are manufactured by the respondent, when in fact, they might actually be produced by the petitioners. Thus, the goodwill that should grow and inure to the benefit of petitioners could be impaired and prejudiced by the continued use of the same term by the respondent (quoting the SEC).

WESTERN EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY COMPANY vs. REYES [G.R. No. 27897. December

2, 1927]

The right to the use of the corporate and trade name of a foreign corporation is a property right, a right in rem, which it may assert and protect in any of the courts of the world even in countries where it does not personally transact any business. In such a case, it is the trade and not the mark that is to be protected, and a trade-mark does not acknowledge any territorial boundaries, but extends to every market where the trader's goods have become known and identified by the use of the mark.

1. DEFINITION

SECTION 121.2. "Collective mark" means any visible sign designated as such in the application for registration and capable of distinguishing the origin or any other common characteristic, including the quality of goods or services of different enterprises which use the sign under the control of the registered owner of the collective mark.

2. REGISTRATION

SECTION 167. Collective Marks. — 167.1. Subject to Subsections 167.2 and 167.3,

Sections 122 to 164 and 166 shall apply to collective marks, except that references therein to "mark" shall be read as "collective mark".

167.2. (a) An application for registration of a collective mark shall designate the mark as a collective mark and shall be accompanied by a copy of the agreement, if any, governing the use of the collective mark.

(b) The registered owner of a collective mark shall notify the Director of any changes made in respect of the agreement referred to in paragraph (a).

167.3. In addition to the grounds provided in Section 149, the Court shall cancel the registration of a collective mark if the person requesting the cancellation proves that only the registered owner uses the mark, or that he uses or permits its use in contravention of the agreements referred to in Subsection 166.2 or that he uses or permits its use in a manner liable to deceive trade circles or the public as to the origin or any other common characteristics of the goods or services concerned.

167.4. The registration of a collective mark, or an application therefor shall not be the subject of a license contract.