MANILA, Philippines—The Court of Appeals has prohibited a telephone repair and alarms system shop from using the word “Intel” in its business name, saying the US-based microchip manufacturer Intel Corp. and its Philippine subsidiaries owned the name.

The appellate court thus upheld a Securities and Exchange Commission order that directed the Manila-based Intel Communication Trading Corp. to strike “Intel” from its name.

It junked the contention of Intel Communication that it had registered its trade name in the Philippines one year earlier than Intel Corp. registered its trademark, and that it was the US-based firm that illegally appropriated the name without its consent.

Intel Corp. and its subsidiaries, Intel Technology Philippines and Intel Philippines Manufacturing Inc., had petitioned the SEC to compel Intel Communication to change its name.

The SEC granted its plea but Intel Communication contested the decision before the appellate court.

In its July 29 decision penned by Justice Ramon Bato Jr., the appellate court said Intel Corp. had the rights to the name “Intel” because it was known internationally for its manufacture of microprocessors and other computer and electronic products.

It said that even before it registered its trademark in the Philippines, Intel Corp. was already well-known because it had “predominantly invaded all of the personal computers in the Philippines during the early nineties to the present.”

The court also pointed out that the Philippines is a signatory to the Paris Convention, which states that countries should prohibit the use of a trademark that is considered an imitation or reproduction of another mark that is already well-known.

The court said that although Intel Communication registered its trade name a year before Intel Corp. registered its trademark, the latter’s subsidiary had registered with the SEC much earlier.

“It therefore goes without saying that [Intel Corp.] has a prior right to the use of Intel as part of its corporate name due to the fact that it was registered ahead of the petitioner,” it said.

The court found no merit in Intel Communication’s argument that there was no similarity in its name and that of the US-based corporation.

It said Intel Communication’s use of the term “Intel” would likely confuse people using “ordinary care and discrimination” into thinking that its products were made by the multinational microprocessor-producing company.

According to the court, it was not unlikely that the two companies could even expand into each other’s business lines—telephones and computers—creating confusion.