In a decision dated Nov. 30, 2006 of the case No. 06014, the SEC also voided the use of the name Indian Chamber of Commerce Phils., Inc.

This was actually the second time the SEC ruled in favor of the first group headed by Iloilo Rep. Ferjenel Biron and Naresh Mansukhani.

The first SEC decision was rendered on Dec. 7, 2005 in case No. 05-008 which held that Mansukhani has right over the corporate name "Filipino-Indian Chamber of Commerce" and, on petition for review, the Court of Appeals in CA GR. No. 92740 dated Sept. 27, 2006 affirmed the SEC ruling.

The case stemmed from a decision of the SEC Company registration and Monitoring Department (CRMD) allowing the reservation of the name "Filipino-Indian Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines, Inc." in Mansukhani’s favor on May 27, 2005 after the term of existence of the old "Filipino-Indian Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines, Inc." expired after 50 years from Nov. 24, 1951 to Nov. 24, 2001.

Thus, the SEC issued a certificate of incorporation to the new Filipino-Indian Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines, Inc.

On April 5, 2006, however, the CRMD again allowed the registration of the name "Indian Chamber of Commerce Phils., Inc. led by Ram Sitaldas. Thus, the second SEC decision of Nov. 30, 2006.

The SEC ruling in the case No. 06-014 and the CA GR. No. 92740 both states that "after the expiration respondent’s corporation’s term without any act on its part to extend its term, its right over the name also ended. Hence, the corporate name is now open for appropriation by any party."

The SEC concluded that since the Mansukhani group "registered with the Commission on March 14, 2006 while the respondent (the Sitaldas group) was registered on April 5, 2006, then the Mansukhani group is "entitled to protection against the use of identical or similar name of another corporation."

The SEC also noted that "one can readily notice a glaring similarity between the two corporate names," hence "confusion may arise."

Citing the Corporation Code, the SEC said that the policy behind the prohibition on the use of confusing or deceptively similar names is "to avoid fraud upon the public that will have occasion to deal with the entity concerned, the evasion of legal obligations and duties, and the reduction of difficulties of administration and supervision over corporation."

It was also noted that "the two corporations have common basic objectives" and it apparent that both, "from the standpoint of their coprorate names and the purposes for which they were established, there exists a similarity that could inevitably lead to confusion."