SEC En Banc Case No. 01-07-94 - For Change of Name Yahoo! Inc. Petitioner-Appelant - versus - Yahoo Food Industries Inc., Yahoo Computer Center Co., Yahoo Trading Co., Yahoo Transport Inc., Yaho Corporation, Yaho Sales International Corporation. Respondents-Appellees.

SEC Building, EDSA, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City Securities and Exchange Commission Republic of the Philippines Department of Finance

YAHOO! INC. Petitioner-Appellant,

- Versus - For: Change of Name SEC En Banc Case No. 01-07-94 (SEC Case No. 02-06-111)

YAHO SALES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION. YAHOO FOOD INDUSTRIES INC. YAHOO COMPUTER CENTER CO. YAHOO TRADING CO., YAHOO TRANSPORT INC., YAHO CORPORATION, Respondents-Appellees. X

DECISION

Yahoo! Inc. (for brevity "Appellant Yahoo!") praying to reverse and set aside the Order dated 03 January 2007 (for brevity "Assailed Order") of the Office of the General Counsel (for brevity "OGC"). The Assailed Order dismissed Appellant Yahoo!'s Verified Petition for Change of Name against Yahoo Food Industries Inc.; Yahoo Computer Center Co.; Yahoo Trading Co.; Yahoo Transport Inc.; Yaho Corporation; Yaho Sales International Corporation (for brevity "Respondent- Appellees"). Before the Commission En Banc is an Appeal filed by Petitioner-Appellant

Avenue, Sunnyvale, California, USA'. laws of the State of Delaware, United States of America, with address at 701 First Appellant Yahoo! is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the

Respondent-appellees are the following2:

Metro Manila. It is registered under SEC Registration No. A199611993 issued on 08 January 1997. Its primary purpose is to manage and operate a chain of restaurants and food outlets. existing under Philippine laws with address at Halili Complex, Project 4. It is existing under Philippine laws with address at 365 Scout Gandia St., Quezon City, 2. 1 Yahoo Computer Center Co. is a partnership duly organized and Yahoo Food Industries Inc. is a corporation duly organized and

2 Ibid. paragraph 5. I Memorandum of Appeal, paragraph 4.

Yahoo! Inc. vs. Yahoo SEC En Banc Case No. 01-07-94 Od Industries Inc., et. al.

Page 2 of 11

the partnership is to engage in trading, marketing, wholesaling and retailing, advertising printing, services and importation of auto parts, accessories and under Philippine laws with address at 7527 Sycamore St., Marcelo Green Village, issued on 15 October 1996. Its primary purpose is to engage in the business of land under SEC Registration No. A200005548 issued on 05 April 2000. Its primary hardware maintenance, systems administration, programming, management, Philippine laws with address at 1342 Antipolo St., Sta. Cruz, Manila. It is registered under SEC Registration No. A199905618 issued on 12 April 1999. The purpose of computers. Paranaque; Metro Manila. It is registered under SEC Registration No. A199608104 purpose is to engage in the manufacture, sale, trade and assembly of corrugated boxes and other allied products and to engage in the business of trading/importing and exporting of goods on wholesale basis. Metro Manila. It is registered under SEC Registration No. 0000141876 issued on 26 June 1987. registered under SEC Registration No. 199900073 issued on 06 January 1999. The purpose of the partnership is to offer high technology desktop publishing serves, consultancy, and computer repair and upgrading. transportation services and to maintain related ticketing and cargo services Philippine laws with address at Luwasan Bulac, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. It is registered and existing under Philippine laws with address at 36 Jefferson Street, San Juan, 4 6. 3. 5 Yaho Corporation is a corporation duly organized and existing under Yahoo Trading Co. is a partnership duly organized and existing under Yaho Sales International Corporation is a corporation duly organized Yahoo Transport Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing

pursuant to Section 183 of the Corporation Code. Cancellation of Corporation/Partnership Name praying for the cancellation of the corporate and partnership names of the above-enumerated respondent-appellees On 20 February 2006, Appellant Yahoo! filed a verified Petition for

Yahoo!'s Petition for lack of merit. In the Assailed Order, the OGC ruled that: On 03 January 2007, the OGC issued the Assailed Order dismissing Appellant

b.) Appellant Yahoo! cannot seek refuge in the protection afforded in the a.) Appellant Yahoo! has no priority of adoption over the name "YAHOO! c.) Appellant Yahoo! trademark is not considered as an "internationally ' the former; incorporation of respondent-appellees; known mark" because two requisites are absent 1) it has not been Intellectual Property Code (IPC) because the trademarks "YAHOO!" and "YAHOOLIGANS!" were registered (date of registration) after the determined sufficiently by competent authorities nor was it established because four (4) of the respondent-appellees were incorporated earlier than

3 Section 18. Corporate name. - 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 or is patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing laws. When a change in the corporate name is approved, the Commission shall issue an amended certificate of incorporation under the amended name.

Yahoo! Inc. vs. Yahoo SEC En Banc Case No. 0 1-07-94 od Industries Inc., et. al. Page 3 of 11 when it attained its status; and 2) there is no similarity that would cause confusion in the goods and services.

name was registered as a trademark by Appellant after Appellees had been incorporated; 3) the Decision erred in not holding that the "Yahoo" name is Memorandum of Appeal which raised the following issues and errors: l) the Decision erred in not ruling that Appellant has priority of adoption of the Yahoo mark; 2) the Decision erred in ruling that even if Appellees were incorporated later than Appellant, Appellant still has no protection for its "Yahoo" name because said internationally known or world-famous. On 25 January 2007, Appellant Yahoo! filed a Notice of Appeal and

the Respondent-appellees filed their respective comments. file their respective comments to the appeal filed by Appellant Yahoo! However, registered mail were returned for unknown reasons. Despite the said orders, none of Orders sent to Yahoo Food Industries Inc. and Yahoo Computers Center Co. via In an Order dated 26 February 2007, respondent-appellees were directed to

Memorandum of Appeal which it presented a Department of Trade and Industry the Philippines. (DTI) Decision" that declared the "YAHOO!" mark as famous, internationally and in On 30 October 2007, Appellant Yahoo! filed a Supplement to its

We find merit in the Appeal.

Section 18 of the Corporation Code (Code) expressly provides:

amended certificate of incorporation under the amended name." change in the corporate name is approved, the Commission shall issue an 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 or is "Section 18. Corporate name. -- No corporate name may be allowed by patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing laws. When a

of the public, and it has authority to de-register at all times and under all circumstances corporate names which in its estimation are likely to generate not only for the protection of the corporations involved but more so for the protection confusion.s It is the Commission's duty to prevent confusion in the use of corporate names

To fall within the prohibition of the law, two requisites must be proven, to wit:

at Suhay ng Katotohanan, G.R. No. 137592, December 12, 2001 4 Yahoo! Inc. vs. Liezel B. Imbien, doing business under the name and style "YAHOO SARI-SARI STORE, DTI Adm Case No. 5 Ang Kaanib sa Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus, H.S.K. sa Bansang Pilipinas, Inc. vs. Iglesia ng Dios kay Cristo Jesus, Haligi 06-051, October 1, 2007.

Yahoo! Inc. vs. Yahoo SEC En Banc Case No. 01-07-94 Hod Industries Inc., et. al Page 4 of 11 (1) that the complainant corporation acquired a prior right over the use of such corporate name; and (2) the proposed name is either: (c) patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing (b) deceptively or confusingly similar to that of any by law; or existing corporation or to any other name already protected Iaw.6 (a) identical, or

Priority of adoption of the name "Yahoo!"

names "YAHOO!" and "YAHOOLIGANS!" based on three (3) reasons. As to the first requisite, Appellant Yahoo! has priority of registration over the

on its 1996 quarterly report to the United States Securities and Exchange is evident that Appellant Yahoo! has priority of adoption over the words "YAHOO!" and "YAHOOLIGANS!" compared to Respondent-appellees except for Yaho Sales International Corp. because the latter entity was incorporated in 1987 or prior to the Yahoo! was incorporated in 05 March 1995 in the State of California, U.S.A., based Commission (US SEC)7. Thereafter, it was reincorporated in 1999 in the State of Delaware, U.S.A., based on its 1999 annual report to the US SEC8. In its Appeal Memorandum, Appellant averred that during the OGC proceedings it was not able to produce its Certificate of Incorporation due to time constraints, but was able to present its Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation'. In its present Appeal, Appellant presented pieces of evidence showing its incorporation in 1995. It incorporation of Appellant Yahoo! in 1995. First, evidence presented in the Appeal Memorandum shows that Appellant

Office (IPO) the said trademarks on an earlier date (date of filing) compared to the date of incorporation of the respondent-appellees. Second, Appellant Yahoo! was able to register with the Intellectual Property

Appellant Yahoo! filed for registration the said trademarks in 1996 to wit:

4-1996-11003013 4-1996-11051910 4-1996-11052011 4-1996-11002912 Reg No. YAHOO! YAHOOLIGANS! YAHOOLIGANS! YAHOO! Trademark August 12,1996 July 24,1996 July 24,1996 August 12, 1996 Filing Date February 24, 2005 February 24, 2005 December 14, 2003 July 21,2003 Date of Registration

6 Industrial Refractories Corporation of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, e. l, GR No. 122174, October 3, 2002 citing Philips Export B.V. vs. Court of Appeals 206 SCRA 457, 463 [1992]. 8 Annex "M" and M-1 of the Appeal. I1 Annex B-2 of the Appeal. 12 Annex B-3 of the Appeal. 7 Annex "L" and "L-1" of the Appeal. 9 Paragraph 9 of the Appeal. I0 Annex B-1 of the Appeal.

Yahoo! Inc. vs. Yahoo P SEC En Banc Case No. 01-07-94 Ood Industries Inc., et. al. Page 5 of 1 1

4-1996-00095215 4-1996-11003114 YAHOO! YAHOO! February 13, 1998February 24, 2005 July 24, 1996 February 24, 2005

Corporation, were incorporated on a later date, to wit: While the respondent-appellees, except for Yaho Sales International

Yaho Corporation Yahoo Computer Center Co. Yaho Sales International Corporation Yahoo Food Industries Yahoo Transport Inc. Yahoo Trading Co. Respondent-Appellee Date of Incorporation October 15, 1996 January 8, 1997 January 9, 1999 June 26, 1987 April 12, 1999 April 5, 2000

the OGC was incorrect when it declared that Appellant Yahoo! has no priority of the trademarks "YAHOO!" and "YAHOOLIGANS!" in 1996. In this connection, Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IPC) adopts a "first-to-file" system in the registration of trade names or trademarks. Thus adoption. It is evident from the foregoing that Appellant Yahoo! filed its application for

LTD.16, the Supreme Court has ruled that: In E. Y. Industrial Sales, Inc. vs. Shen Dar Electricity and Machinery Corp

(d) Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different "RA 8293 espouses the "first-to-file" rule as stated under Sec. Section 123. Registrability. - 123.1. A mark cannot be registered if it: proprietor or a mark with an earlier filing or priority date, in respect 123.1(d) which states: of : XXX (iii) If it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. (Emphasis supplied.) (i) The same goods or services, or (ii) Closely related goods or services, or

Under this provision, the registration of a mark is prevented with the earlier filing date. While RA 8293 removed the previous requirement of oppose the registration of a mark." however, be interpreted to mean that ownership should be based upon an proof of actual use prior to the filing of an application for registration of a mark, proof of prior and continuous use is necessary to establish ownership of a mark. Such ownership constitutes sufficient evidence to filing _of an earlier application for registration. This must not,

14 Annex B-5 of the Appeal. 16 GR No. 184850, October 20, 2010. 15 Annex B-6 of the Appeal. 13 Annex B-4 of the Appeal.

Yahoo! Inc. vs. Yahoo SEC En Banc Case No. 01-07-94 Sod Industries Inc., et. al. Page 6 of 1 1

registration in 1996 the trademarks "YAHOO!" and "YAHOOLIGANS!". Thus, it the incorporation of respondent-appellees, except for Yaho Sales International Corp. registration with the IPO. The date of filing is vital and controlling in determining a trade name or trademarks priority of adoption. Appellant Yahoo! filed for acquired priority of adoption over the said mark during that time which is earlier to The protection of law on trademarks is reckoned from the date of filing of its

application for trademark registration after the Respondent-appellees' incorporation, the registration of the trade name or trademark is not necessary to invoke ownership. Evidence of prior and continuous use in trade and commerce is essential to prove ownership over a trade name or trademark. In the instant case, Respondent-appellees failed to respond to Petitioner-appellant's claim. Thus, they admitted Petitioner- appellant's prior use of the "YAHOO" mark. Third, assuming for the sake of argument that Appellant Yahoo! filed its

Corp. LTD17., the Supreme Court has ruled that: Also in E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc. vs. Shen Dar Electricity and Machinery

Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc.: "As aptly stated by the Court in Shangri-la International Hotel

Registration, without more, does not confer upon the registrant an absolute right to the registered mark. The certificate of registration is merely a prima facie proof that the registrant is the owner of the registered mark or trade name. Evidence of prior and continuous presumptive ownership of the registrant and may very well entitle the former to be declared owner in an appropriate case. use of the mark or trade name by another can overcome the

X X X

by registration but by adoption and use in trade or commerce. As between actual use of a mark without registration, and registration of the mark without actual use thereof, the former prevails over the latter. For a rule widely accepted and firmly entrenched, because it has come down through the years, is that actual use in commerce or business is a pre- requisite to the acquisition of the right of ownership. Ownership of a mark or trade name may be acquired not necessarily.

X X X

By itself, registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. When the use thereof. Such presumption, just like the presumptive regularity in the applicant is not the owner of the trademark being applied for, he has no right to apply for registration of the same. Registration merely creates a prima facie presumption of the validity of the registration, of the registrant's ownership of the trademark and of the exclusive right to the

Companies, Inc., GR No. 159938, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 405, pp. 419-421. 17 GR No. 184850, October 20, 2010 citing Shangri-la International Hotel Management,Ltd. v. Developers Group of

Yahoo! Inc. vs. Yahoo SEC En Banc Case No. 01-07-94 God Industries Inc., et: al. Page 7 of I1 performance of official functions, is rebuttable and must give way to evidence to the contrary."

adopted and used the "YAHOO!" mark when it started its business in 1994 and when it was incorporated in 1995. Likewise, the mere fact that it filed the of the said mark locally. Additionally, Appellant Yahoo! presented a list of trademark applications and registrations for the "YAHOO!" mark in different countries as early as in 199518. Thus, it has shown that it acquired prior right over the "YAHOO!" mark, with the Philippine IPO in 1996, is a clear indication of its usage mark "YAHOO!" The uncontroverted evidence on record show that Appellant Yahoo! had

name or trademark is protected under the IPC, then it cannot be used as a corporate name pursuant to Section 18 of the Code. Thus, the first requisite is present. infringing or violating the former's property rights theretol9. In essence, if a trade Code, should be construed in relation to the pertinent provisions of the IPC governing the registration and protection of trademarks or trade names and service marks. What Republic Act No. 8293 protects as a mark or trade name of a person or entity may not be used as a corporate name or part thereof by another without Moreover, the SEC rules on corporate names, pursuant to Section 18 of the

Yahoo! is a well-known mark, internationally and locally

well-known marks should enjoy protection against any reproduction, imitation or well-known marks is now being implemented through Section 123 (e) and (f) of R.A. No. 8293, to wit: translation that would create confusion. This treaty obligation for the protection of As to the second requisite, Art. 6bis2 of the Paris Convention provides that

"Section 123. Registrability. - 123.1. A mark cannot be registered if it: (e). Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a authority of the Philippines to be well-known internationally and in for identical or similar goods or services: Provided, That in determining whether a mark is well-known, account shall be taken of the knowledge of the relevant sector of the public, rather than of the public at a result of the promotion of the mark; translation of a mark which is considered by the competent the Philippines, whether or not it is registered here, as being already the mark of a person other than the applicant for registration, and used large, including knowledge in the Philippines which has been obtained as

20 Article 6bis, Paris Convention provides x x x the countries of the Union undertakes, either administratively if their already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of the present Convention and used for identical or similar goods. known mark or an imitation liable to create confusion therewith. 19 The Law on Trademark, Infringement and Unfair Competition, Ruben E. Agpalo, 2000 First Edition, page 110. legislation so permits, or at the request of an interested party, to refuse or to cancel the registration and to prohibit the considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use to be well-known in that country as being These provisions shall also apply when the essential part of the mark constitutes a reproduction of any of such well- use of a trademark which constitutes a reproduction, imitation or translation, liable to create confusion, of a mark I8 Annex "K" of Memorandum of Appeal.

Yahool Inc. vs. Yahoo Yood Industries inc., et. al. SEC En Banc Case No. 0 1-07-94

Page 8 of 1 1

paragraph, which is registered in the Philippines with respect to the interests of the owner of the registered mark are likely to be damaged by such use;" of a mark considered well-known in accordance with the preceding goods or services which are not similar to those with respect to which those goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services, and the owner of the registered mark: Provided further, That (f) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation registration is applied for: Provided, That use of the mark in relation to

further expounded the above-quoted provision, to wit: In 246 Corporation (Rolex Music Lounge) vs. Daway2 1, the Supreme Court

"A junior user of a well-known mark on goods or services which are not similar to the goods or services, and are therefore unrelated, to those specified in the certificate of registration of the well-known mark is precluded from using the same on the entirely unrelated goods or services, subject to the following requisites, to wit:

registration in the well known mark. This requirement refers to the or services and those goods or services specified in the certificate of 2. The use of the well-known mark on the entirely unrelated goods or services would indicate a connection between such unrelated goods 1. The mark is well-known internationally and in the Philippines. Under Rule 102 of the Rules and Regulations on Trademarks, Service Marks, Trade Names and Marked or Stamped Containers, in determining whether a mark is well known, the following criteria or any combination thereof may be taken into account: (c) the degree of the inherent or acquired distinction of the mark; (k) the outcome of litigations dealing with the issue of whether the promotion of the mark, including advertising or publicity and registered for or used on identical or similar goods or services and owned by persons other than the person claiming that his mark is a well-known mark. (a) the duration, extent and geographical area of any use of the mark. in particular, the duration, extent and geographical area of any presentation, at fairs or exhibitions, of the goods and/or services to which the mark applies; (b) the market share in the Philippines and in other countries, of the goods and/or services to which the mark applies; (d) the quality-image or reputation acquired by the mark; (e) the extent to which the mark has been registered in the world; (f) the exclusivity of the registration attained by the mark in the (g) the extent to which the mark has been used in the world; (h) the exclusivity of use attained by the mark in the world; (i) the commercial value attributed to the mark in the world; (j) the record of successful protection of the rights in the mark; mark is a well-known mark; and (l) the presence of absence of identical or similar marks validly world:

21 C.R. No. 157216, November 20, 2003.

Yahoo! Inc. vs. Yahoo SEC En Banc Case No. 0 1-07-94 Bod Industries Inc. et. al. Page 9 of 11

connection or relationship between the registrant and the user of the interests of the registrant of the well-known mark will be damaged because of the inferior quality of the good or services of the user. likelihood of confusion of origin or business or some business 3. The interests of the owner of the well-known mark are likely to be damaged. For instance, if the registrant will be precluded from expanding its business to those unrelated good or services, or if the mark.

College (Harvard University) 22, the Supreme Court ruled that: In Fredco Manufacturing Corporation vs. President and Fellows of Harvard

Philippines but only that it be well-known in the Philippines." "Indeed, Section 123.1(e) of R.A. No. 8293 (IPC) now categorically states that "a mark which is considered by the competent authority of the Philippines to be well-known internationally and in the Philippines, whether or not it is registered here," cannot be registered by another in the Philippines. Section 123.1(e) does not require that the well-known mark be used in commerce in the

"YAHOO" to be a well-known international mark, to wit: Trade and Industry (DTI) Decision23 dated 01 October 2007. DTI declared the mark When Appellant Yahoo! filed a Supplement, it presented a Department of

"Undoubtedly, evidence amply suggest of Complainant's (Appellant with the YAHOO! Website. And such name became its corporate name in 1995 when it incorporated in the State of Delaware, U.S.A. Yahoo!) use of the "YAHOO" mark began in 1994 when it came ou

X X X

which the Philippines, as party to the Convention is bound to In this connection, this Office's (DTI) authority to recognize and declare trademarks as being well-known has been affirmed by a number of cases, (129 SCRA 39), which reiterated the ruling in the first case. In these cases, it has been declared that the Minister of Trade (now the the. Paris Convention to determine whether a mark is well-known such as La Chemise Lacoste S.A. vs. Ram Sadhwani (AC-GR No. SP) 13356, June 17, 1983) and LA Chemise Lacoste, S.A. vs. Fernandez Department of trade and Industry) is the competent authority under protect.

The numerous documentary evidence presented by Complainant. namely: the l) list of trademark registrations and applications of complainant for the mark "YAHOO!"; 2) Certificates of Registration for the mark "YAHOO! and variations thereof; 3) decisions of the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation issued by the Intellectual Property Office under the name of Complainant

23 Yahoo! Inc. vs. Liezel B. Imbien, doing business under the name and style "YAHOO SARI-SARI STORE", Adm Case No. 22 GR No. 185917, June 1, 2011. 06-051, October 1, 2007, Annex "A" of Supplement to Memorandum of Appeal dated 18 October 2007.

Yahoo! Inc. vs. Yahoo Y Ood Industries Inc., et. al. SEC En Banc Case No. 01-07-94 Page 10 of 11

leave no doubt about the fact that "YAHOO!" enjoys a well-known name is famous in the Philippines as well.24, measure in determining the number of visits to Complainant's websites; - worldwide status and that "YAHOO!" trademark and/or trade "YAHOO!" mark famous; and 4) the large number of "hits" and "page views" from Internet users form the Philippines, which is an accurate Center and the National Arbitration Forum declaring Complainant's

as provided by the IPC for those trade names registered in the Philippines extends to enjoys the protection of law against any infringement. Furthermore, the protection of goods or services not similar to that of the owner of the well-known mark. known, its evaluation and declaration should be given credence. In the said DTI case, there is an unequivocal declaration by the DTI that the mark "YAHOO!" is an internationally well-known mark and it is also famous in the Philippines. Hence, it Since the DTI is the competent authority to declare whether a mark is well.

are confusingly similar to appellant's mark since their names contain the dominant IPO and its incorporation in 1995. The corporate names of the respondent-appellees words "YAHOO" and "YAHO". Thus, the two (2) above-stated requisites are prior right over the mark "YAHOO!" in 1996 when it filed its application with the present and in which case falls within the prohibition of the law. Furthermore, the DTI has declared that "YAHOO!" to be a well-known mark, internationally and Iocaly As above-discussed, it has been established that Appellant Yahoo! acquired a

the former was incorporated earlier (26 June 1987) compared to that of the latter (1995). confusingly similar to Appellant Yahoo!, the latter does not have a prior right because Thus, one of the above-stated requirements is absent. As for Yaho Sales International Corporation, while its name is considered as

Corporation, including Yahoo Food Industries Inc. and Yahoo Transport Inc., are already revoked corporations. Hence, this decision applies only to those respondent- appellees that are still registered with the Commission. Moreover, Commission's records reveal that Yaho Sales International

PARTIALLY GRANTED and the Order of Office of the General Counsel dated 03 directed to submit a compliance report attaching therein certified copies of the Information Sheet, within the said period. January 2007 is hereby MODIFIED. Respondent-Appellees Yahoo Computer Center Co.; Yahoo Trading Co.; Yaho Corporation, are hereby ORDERED to CHANGE its corporate name within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Decision. It is further approved Certificate of Amendment of their Articles of Incorporation and General WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby

Food Industries Inc., the case against them is rendered moot since these are already revoked corporations. As for Yaho Sales International Corporation; Yahoo Transport Inc. and Yahoo

24 b id, Page 9.

Yahoo! Inc. vs. Yahoo Food Industries Inc., et. al. SEC En Banc Case No. 01-07-94 G Page I1 of I1

SO ORDERED.

Mandaluyong City, Philippines; 05 November 2015.

TERESITA J. HERBOSA Chairperson

YTONY Commissioner MANUF Commisstoner O B.GAITE

EPHYRO LUIS B. AMATONG ** Commissioner B G S JAMES G.VITERBO bnes6 Commissioner TIDC

On Official Travel

On Official Travel