Philippine Supreme Court cancels Lido trademark registrations, rules in favour of heirs
06 October 2026
In a Supreme Court decision on August 12, 2026, trademark registrations for the Lido brand were cancelled, and the court ruled in favour of the heirs of King Si Biak. The court held that trademark registrations obtained in bad faith are void ab initio and confer no protectable rights. It clarified that while the Philippines follows a first-to-file system, registration must be made validly.
The dispute involved the Lido Restaurant brand, which was operated under a partnership between King Si Biak and Annie Alipio. Despite a 2010 ruling confirming that the right to register the Panciteria Lido trademark belonged to Eng Son Co., Alipio formed a new entity (PLCCC) and applied to register the Lido marks in 2012. The Supreme Court relaxed the procedural rules, finding that PLCCC acted in bad faith due to Alipio's prior knowledge of the partnership's superior ownership right.
Arjel P. de Guzman | a partner @ de Guzman Mayuga, Manila
“This ruling reinforces well-established legal principles regarding trademark rights, particularly the interplay between bad faith vis-à-vis the first-to-file principle in Philippine trademark law,” said Arjel P. de Guzman, a partner at de Guzman Mayuga in Manila. “A common misconception under the IP Code (R.A. No. 8293) is that the ‘first-to-file’ system grants absolute ownership to whoever registers first. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles laid out in previous cases that a certificate of registration is only prima facie evidence of ownership. When registration is procured in bad faith such as knowingly appropriating a mark associated with another enterprise, the registration is invalid and subject to cancellation.”
He added that in determining bad faith, Article 1821 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that notice or knowledge acquired by a partner regarding partnership affairs is legally imputed to the partnership itself.
“Here, because partner Alipio knew from previous litigation that the Lido mark belonged to Eng Son Co., PLCCC was legally charged with that knowledge. Attempting to register the mark despite this knowledge constituted bad faith,” he said.
“Also, this case provides a stern reminder that under Section 165.2 of the IP Code, trade names are protected against subsequent misleading use even without registration. The Supreme Court noted that ‘Lido’ had been used as a trade name by Eng Son Co. for decades, and thus PLCCC’s registration violated Section 165.2 by adopting a mark likely to mislead the public.”
With this ruling, de Guzman said that the reiteration of the rule against bad faith filings creates heightened risks for trademark thieves, trolls, and squatters. “Applicants who attempt to race to the IPOPHL [Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines] to register marks belonging to former business partners, employers, or licensors cannot rely on a first-to-file defence. Evidence of prior relationships and knowledge will defeat bad-faith registrations,” he said.
He said that some takeaways from this case:
- Registration must always be made in good faith. Being first to register a trademark does not grant immunity if the application was made in bad faith or contrary to law.
- In case of business partnerships, knowledge is imputed across partners, and the partnership entity cannot claim ignorance if one of its founding partners had prior knowledge of another entity’s rights to a mark. Further, dissolution of a business does not automatically erase its IP rights or transfer them to individual partners without formal liquidation and asset assignment.
- Business identities used continuously in commerce are protected against confusingly similar registrations regardless of whether the trade name itself was formally registered.
- Excel V. Dyquiangco
