The Philippines follows a “first-to-file” system for trademarks: as a rule, ownership goes to whoever validly registers the mark first. But a recent Supreme Court decision involving the long-established Lido restaurant brand is a strong reminder that registration must be made in good faith. Racing to the Intellectual Property Office with someone else’s brand will not hold up.
The case in brief
In a decision dated August 12, 2026, the Supreme Court cancelled the trademark registrations for the Lido marks and ruled in favor of the heirs of King Si Biak.
The Lido Restaurant brand had been operated under a partnership between King Si Biak and Annie Alipio. A 2010 ruling had already confirmed that the right to register the Panciteria Lido trademark belonged to Eng Son Co. Despite this, Alipio formed a new entity, PLCCC, which applied to register the Lido marks in 2012.
The Supreme Court relaxed procedural rules so it could rule on the merits, and found that PLCCC had acted in bad faith.
What the Supreme Court held
1. Bad-faith registrations confer no rights. The Court held that trademark registrations obtained in bad faith are void from the start and confer no protectable rights. While the Philippines follows a first-to-file system, the registration itself must be valid. A certificate of registration is only prima facie evidence of ownership, and it can be overturned.
2. A partner’s knowledge is the partnership’s knowledge. Under Article 1821 of the Civil Code, notice to or knowledge of a partner about partnership affairs is imputed to the partnership. Because Alipio knew from earlier litigation that the Lido mark belonged to Eng Son Co., her new entity was legally charged with that knowledge. Registering the mark despite it was bad faith.
3. Trade names are protected even without registration. Under Section 165.2 of the Intellectual Property Code (R.A. No. 8293), trade names are protected against later use that is likely to mislead the public, even if they were never registered. “Lido” had been used as a trade name for decades, so the new registration violated this protection.
Why this matters for business owners
If you co-own or co-founded a business:
- Settle who owns the brand at the start, in your partnership agreement, articles of incorporation, or a separate IP assignment.
- Dissolving a business does not automatically pass its trademarks to individual partners. IP rights need a proper liquidation and formal assignment.
- A former partner who registers the shared brand in their own name cannot rely on the first-to-file rule if they knew of the business’s prior rights.
If you’re launching a brand:
- Register your trademark early with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL). Good-faith registration is your strongest protection.
- Before adopting a name, search existing registrations and trade names, including long-running local businesses that may never have registered.
If someone has registered your brand:
- You may be able to oppose or seek cancellation of the registration, especially if you can show the other party knew of your prior rights. Evidence of prior relationships (former partners, distributors, employees, licensors) and their knowledge can be decisive.
The bigger picture
The Lido case fits a consistent line of Supreme Court rulings, including cases involving the Cyma and Gloria Maris restaurant marks. In each, the Court refused to let a party who knew of another’s rights benefit from filing first. The message to trademark squatters is clear: bad faith defeats first-to-file.
Related articles
- Wrong Lot Number in Your Deed of Sale? Supreme Court Upholds a Cebu City Land Sale
- Supreme Court: A BIR Revenue Regulation Cannot Override a Tax Exemption Granted by Law
- See all Legal Updates
How Recososa Law Firm can help
Our Intellectual Property Law practice helps businesses register and protect their trademarks, structure brand ownership among founders and partners, and oppose or cancel bad-faith registrations before the IPOPHL and the courts. Contact us to secure your brand.
This article is a simplified summary of a reported Supreme Court decision for general information only. It is not legal advice. Read the full text of the decision and consult a lawyer about your specific case.