View full case

GSIS FAMILY BANK - THRIFT BANK v. BPI FAMILY BANK

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over the use of the names "Family Bank" and "GSIS Family Bank" by two banking institutions. Petitioner, GSIS Family Bank, appealed the decision of the SEC En Banc to the Court of Appeals. The petitioner raised several issues, including the alleged deceptive similarity between the names "GSIS Family Bank" and "BPI Family Bank," and whether the use of "GSIS Family Bank" by Comsavings Bank constituted unfair competition. The petitioner also questioned whether the approval of the DTI and BSP constituted lawful and valid use of the name "GSIS Family Bank." Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the respondent, BPI Family Bank, was guilty of forum shopping. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the approvals by the BSP and DTI do not authorize the lawful and valid use of the name. The Court of Appeals found that there was confusing similarity between the corporate names and that there was no forum shopping. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, raising issues such as the erroneous finding of the SEC that the word "Family" is not generic, the alleged forum shopping by the respondent, and the disregard of the BSP's opinion regarding the use of the trade name "GSIS Family Bank." The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals, stating that the respondent had a prior right over the use of the corporate name "Family Bank."

This case involves a dispute between two corporations, petitioner and respondent, over the use of the corporate name "Family Bank." Petitioner argues that it has the prior right over the use of the said name because it has been using it for several years and has obtained registration with the SEC as "Family Bank, Inc." Respondent claims that it has the right to use the name as it has applied for registration with the SEC as "Family Bank Corporation." The court examines the two requisites set forth in the case of Philips Export B.V. v. Court of Appeals for determining the validity of the registration of a corporate name. The first requisite is that the proposed name is identical or deceptive or confusingly similar to that of any existing corporation or to any other name protected by law. In this case, both petitioner and respondent use the words "Family Bank" in their respective corporate names, satisfying the requirement of identical names. Respondent cannot rely on Section 3 of the Revised Guidelines in the Approval of Corporate and Partnership Names to justify its claim, as this provision prohibits the use of identical, misleading, or confusingly similar names. The court will now proceed to analyze the second requisite in the subsequent sections of the case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the use by GSIS Family Bank of the words "Family Bank" is deceptively and confusingly similar to the name BPI Family Bank.

  2. Whether the use by Comsavings Bank of "GSIS Family Bank" as its business constitutes unfair competition.

  3. Whether BPI Family Bank is guilty of forum shopping.

  4. Whether the approval of the DTI and the BSP of petitioner's application to use the name GSIS Family Bank constitutes its authority to the lawful and valid use of such trade name or trademark.

  5. Whether the application of respondent BPI Family Bank for the exclusive use of the name "Family Bank," a generic name, though not yet approved by IPO of the Bureau of Patents, has barred the GSIS Family Bank from using such trademark or name.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that the use of the words "Family Bank" by GSIS Family Bank is confusingly similar to BPI Family Bank and that BPI Family Bank has the prior right to the use of the name "Family Bank."

  2. The Court upheld that the use of "GSIS Family Bank" by Comsavings Bank as its business name constitutes unfair competition due to the likelihood of confusion among the public.

  3. The Court ruled out forum shopping, indicating that not all the requirements of litis pendentia are present.

  4. The Court ruled that the approvals by the BSP and DTI do not constitute authority for the lawful and valid use of the trade name "GSIS Family Bank," as the SEC has absolute jurisdiction over corporate names.

  5. The Court held that the generic and descriptive nature of the word "family" does not prevent BPI Family Bank from having the exclusive right to use "Family Bank" as its corporate name.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Priority of Adoption: An entity has the right to a corporate name based on prior and continuous use.

  • Likelihood of Confusion: Corporate names should not be identical or deceptively similar to avoid public misperception.

  • SEC Authority: The SEC has exclusive jurisdiction, supervision, and control over all corporations, including the enforcement of name regulations.

  • Exclusivity of Corporate Names: Even descriptive or suggestive names can be protected if they have acquired a distinctive character associated with a specific corporation.

  • Forum Shopping: Issues and arguments relating to non-compliance with procedural requirements must be raised at the earliest opportunity and not for the first time on appeal.