GSIS GSIS FAMILY BANK TRHIFT BANK
FAMILY  Originally organized as Royal
BAML V. Savings Bank
BPI  STARTED 1971
FAMILY  DUE TO LIQUIDITY PRBLEMS>
BANK TMPORARILY CLOSED BY BSP fpr
two months
REPOPENED > named COMSAVINGS BANK,
under mgt of COMMERCIAL BANK of
MANILA
 1987, GSIS acquired it from
COMMERCIAL ANK
 Mgt and control was transferred to
GSIS
THEN, APPLIED COPRORATE NAME of
“GSIS FAMILY BANK, A THRIFT BANK
 DTI and the BSP approved the
applications.9
ON THE OTHER HAND, BPI FAMLY BAMK
 merger between the Family Bank
and Trust Company (FBTC) and
the Bank of the Philippine Islands
(BPI).1
 1969, the Gotianum family
registered with the SEC the
corporate name
"Family First Savings
Bank,>"Family Savings Bank," >
ANd then later to "Family Bank
and Trust Company.
 Merger WITH bpi>BPI Family
Savings Bank
IT REACHED RESPODENTS ATTENTION>
PETITIONER IS USING THE NAME “FAMILY
BANK”
 Requested that it be
DISALLOWED
 BPI FAMILY SAVINg claimed
exclusive ownership of FAMILY
BANK (from the merger)
 Alleged that through the years: it
has been known as "BPI Family
Bank" or simply "Family Bank"
both locally and internationally. >
gained goodwill and reputation
SEC ORDER: GSIS MUST CHANGE NAME>
because confusingly similar
Won GSIS MAY USE “FAMILY BANK”
NO.
UNDER CORP CODE
 No corporate name may be allowed by
the Securities and Exchange
Commission if the proposed name is
identical or deceptively or confusingly
similar to that of any existing
corporation or to any other name
already protected by law
 TWO REQUISITES:
1. complainant corporation
acquired a prior right over the
use of such corporate namE
2. proposed name is either
(a) identical or
(b) deceptive or confusingly
similar to that of any existing
corporation or to any other
name already protected by
law; or
(c) patently deceptive,
confusing or contrary to
existing law
CASE AT BAR
1st req.
 RESPONDENT was incorporated on
1969 as FAMILY SAVINGS BANK
 1981 as BPI FAMILY BANK
 On the other hand> GSIS FAMILY> only
in 2002
2nd req.
 words "Family Bank" present in both
petitioner and respondent's corporate
name > identical
 To show contrast petitioner used the
words "GSIS" and "thrift." > this are not
enough> not sufficiently distinct
o GSIS> merely an acronym
o Thift> a clasisification of type
of bank
 DECEPTIVE
o Test: won a person using
oridinary care and
discrimination would be
misled > confsing is likely, not
actual
 Likelihood of confusing
FAMILY BANK IS NOT A GENERIC NAME/
DESCRIPTIVE ANME
  “FAMILY BANK” is a trade ame
 Applying rue of PRIORITY OF
REGISTARTION> first in time , first
in right> BPI HAD PREFERENTIAL
RIGHT
 THUS SHOULD NOT USE THE
WORD “FAMILY”
CA: respondent had the exclusive use of the
copr name> because of prior use/adoption
of “FAMILY BAMK” since 1969
FAMILY and BANK
 Under the facts of this case, the word
"family" cannot be separated from the
word "bank.
 both petitioner and respondent refer to
the phrase "Family Bank" in their
submissions. This coined phrase,
neither being generic nor descriptive,
 Arbitrary marks
o are generally considered to be
easily remembered because of
their arbitrariness. They are
original and unexpected in
relation to the products they
endorse, thus, becoming
themselves distinctive."
 Suggestive Marks
o merely suggest some quality or
ingredient of goods.
 By definition, there can be no expected
relation between the word "family" and
the banking business of respondent.
Rather, the words suggest that
respondent’s bank is where family
savings should be deposited.
 Thus GSIS cannot cliam that it is
generic, which cannot be appropriated
exclusively by repondent