Remedies and Liability (Philippine Context)

Why this happens—and why it matters

In Philippine practice, disputes over a person’s name often arise after an endorsement, consultancy, partnership, distributorship, franchise, or “brand ambassador” arrangement ends—yet the business keeps using the person’s name (or identity) to retain credibility, attract customers, or preserve goodwill.

A “name” issue is rarely just about courtesy. Continued use can trigger contract liability, civil liability for damages, intellectual property claims, consumer protection exposure, data privacy issues, and in certain cases criminal liability—especially when the name is used to mislead the public into thinking you still own, manage, endorse, or are connected with the business.

This article covers the main legal theories, remedies, and practical pathways in the Philippines.

1) What “unauthorized use of your name” looks like after termination

Post-contract name use commonly appears in:

Marketing/Advertising: posters, product labels, packaging, social media posts, endorsements, “powered by,” “in collaboration with,” “formerly with,” or “as seen with [Name].”
Business identity: business name, trade name, store signage, corporate name, franchise name, or brand name containing your name.
Digital assets: domain names, email addresses, social media handles, Google Business profiles, “About” pages, YouTube channels, podcasts, press releases.
Sales and documentation: invoices, quotations, purchase orders, proposals, presentations, calling cards, email signatures referencing you as “partner,” “co-founder,” “consultant,” “director,” etc.
Public representation: speaking engagements, partnerships, or sponsorships where your name is used to secure deals.
Misleading affiliation: the business implies you are still involved, still endorsing, or still responsible for quality/service.

The legal risk increases sharply when the use creates confusion or false association—even if the business claims it is merely “historical” or “for legacy.”

2) First question: what did the contract actually authorize—and when did that authority end?

In many arrangements, the right to use your name is a license—a limited permission (scope, platforms, territory, term). When the contract ends, the license usually ends too, unless:

the contract contains survival clauses allowing continued limited use;
the contract provides a wind-down period (e.g., sell-off of remaining inventory);
you assigned rights (e.g., trademark assignment) rather than merely licensing; or
the agreement is structured such that the business legitimately owns the brand including the name (subject to restrictions on misrepresentation).

Common contract clauses that control the outcome

“Name and Likeness” license clause: defines what may be used (name, signature, image), where, and for how long.
Termination effects: mandatory takedown/removal timelines; destruction/return of materials.
Quality control/approval rights: especially if your name functions like a brand.
Sell-off provisions: remaining stock may be sold for a defined period, typically with limits on new production/ads.
Non-disparagement / confidentiality: may affect public statements.
Liquidated damages / penalties: preset amounts if name use continues.
Injunctive relief stipulation: acknowledges court relief is appropriate for continued misuse.

Even if the contract is silent, Philippine law may still provide remedies through civil law principles, intellectual property, and penal statutes.

3) Legal foundations in the Philippines: where your protection comes from

A) Contract law (Civil Code)

If the contract gave limited permission to use your name and that permission ended, continued use may be breach of contract. Core principles include:

Obligations from contracts have the force of law between the parties and must be complied with in good faith.
Parties may stipulate terms, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

Typical remedies: damages, enforcement of takedown obligations, and—crucially—injunction to stop ongoing misuse.

B) Civil liability even without a contract: “abuse of rights” and related provisions

Even if there’s no direct contract (or the contract doesn’t address name use), continued use can be actionable under the Civil Code’s general provisions:

Article 19 (Abuse of Rights): exercise of rights must be with justice, honesty, and good faith.
Article 20: anyone who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage must indemnify.
Article 21: anyone who willfully causes loss or injury in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy must compensate.
Article 26: protects dignity, personality, privacy, and peace of mind—useful when the misuse intrudes into personal identity or causes reputational harm.

These provisions are often used when the wrongful act is misleading affiliation or exploitation of identity that causes harm.

C) Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293): trademark, trade name, unfair competition

If your name functions as a brand, or the business is using your name as a source identifier, the Intellectual Property Code can be central.

Trademarks (registered or unregistered depending on circumstances): If your name is registered as a trademark (or you have protectable rights through use plus goodwill), unauthorized use may amount to infringement.
Trade names/business identifiers: Trade names and business names can receive protection against confusing or deceptive use, even in certain situations without formal registration.
Unfair competition / “passing off”: Even without a registered trademark, you may have a claim if the business uses your name in a way that deceives the public or passes off its goods/services as connected with you.
Bad faith registration issues: Philippine trademark law generally restricts registration of marks that identify a particular living individual without consent. If the former business registered your name (or a confusingly similar variant) without your written consent, that can support cancellation or opposition strategies, depending on timing and facts.

Practical significance: IP remedies are powerful because they often support injunction, takedown, and seizure/impounding measures against infringing materials, plus damages and accounting of profits (depending on the claim).

D) Consumer protection: misleading ads and false affiliation (RA 7394 and related rules)

If the business continues to use your name to imply endorsement or involvement, that can be a deceptive or misleading representation affecting consumers. This matters when:

customers are induced to buy because they believe you are still involved;
your name is used as a quality guarantee; or
the business trades on your reputation.

Consumer protection theories can support complaints or enforcement actions where misrepresentation is public-facing.

E) Data Privacy Act (RA 10173): when “name use” becomes personal data processing

A person’s name can be personal information if it identifies an individual, especially when used with other details (photos, contact info, biography, credentials, endorsements).

If the business processes your personal data (posting, publishing, using in marketing databases, lead lists, or online profiles) without a lawful basis, it can trigger Data Privacy Act obligations and potential liability. This is especially relevant when:

your name is tied to your photo, CV, signatures, or contact details;
the business posts content about you after termination; or
the business uses your identity in CRM/sales funnels.

F) Criminal exposure in certain cases

Not every unauthorized use is criminal. But some fact patterns may cross into criminal law:

Usurpation of name (Revised Penal Code): Using the name of another for the purpose of causing damage can be punishable. This is more likely where there is clear intent to harm or deceive, not mere legacy use.
Estafa / fraud-type scenarios: If your name is used as part of deceit to obtain money or property from customers/investors (e.g., “owned by [Name]” to solicit payments), criminal theories may be explored depending on evidence.
Cybercrime (RA 10175): If the unauthorized use is done via online accounts, websites, social media impersonation, or other computer systems—especially using identifying information—cybercrime provisions may apply in appropriate cases.
Libel/slander (if defamatory statements accompany the use): If the business uses your name along with statements that damage your reputation, separate defamation issues can arise.

Criminal theories are highly fact-dependent and typically require clearer proof of intent and the specific statutory elements.

4) What you can sue for (or complain about): main causes of action

1) Breach of contract (when a contract governed name use)

You generally look for:

a clause granting limited rights to use your name;
clear termination date/event;
post-termination obligations (remove signage, stop ads, stop public claims);
evidence of continued use after termination.

Recoverable relief often includes: actual damages, liquidated damages (if provided), attorney’s fees (if stipulated or justified), plus injunctive relief.

2) Injunction-based civil action under Civil Code principles (even without strong IP rights)

If the core wrong is exploitation of your identity and false association, you may anchor on Articles 19/20/21/26 and seek:

TRO / preliminary injunction to stop ongoing use quickly,
permanent injunction after trial,
damages for harm suffered.

3) Trademark infringement (if you own a registered mark incorporating your name)

This is one of the strongest tools when available. It can support:

injunctive relief,
damages and/or accounting,
impounding/destruction of infringing materials (depending on proceedings).

4) Unfair competition / passing off (especially when confusion is the harm)

Even without trademark registration, if the business creates confusion that it is yours/endorsed by you, unfair competition theories can apply.

5) Challenges to business name / trade name / corporate name

If the former business uses your name in its registered business identity (DTI business name, SEC corporate name), the pathway may include:

administrative objection/complaint routes within the relevant agency processes; and/or
civil actions depending on the harm and the remedies needed.

6) Data privacy complaint (when publication/processing of your identity has no lawful basis)

Where facts fit, remedies may include orders to stop processing, remove content, and accountability measures.

5) Liability: what the former business (and people behind it) may face

A) Civil liability (money + court orders)

Depending on your cause of action and proof, potential civil exposures include:

Injunctive relief: stop using your name, remove it from all platforms, correct public claims.
Actual/compensatory damages: lost income, lost opportunities, proven reputational/business harm.
Moral damages: mental anguish, anxiety, humiliation (commonly pursued where identity and reputation are involved).
Nominal damages: recognition of a violated right even if actual loss is hard to quantify.
Exemplary damages: in cases of wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent conduct (requires a basis and typically accompanies other damages).
Attorney’s fees and costs: sometimes recoverable where justified or stipulated.

Who can be liable?

The business entity (corporation/partnership/sole proprietorship).
Potentially responsible officers/agents if they personally participated in wrongful acts or if legal doctrines allow piercing in exceptional circumstances (fact-dependent).
Ad agencies/contractors may be involved, but liability depends on their role and knowledge.

B) Administrative liability

Possible outcomes vary by forum:

orders to correct or discontinue misleading advertising;
takedown/removal orders through platform and regulatory processes;
data privacy compliance orders and possible penalties where applicable.

C) Criminal liability (select cases)

Where statutory elements are met, responsible individuals could face criminal proceedings (e.g., usurpation of name, cybercrime-related offenses), but this is not automatic and depends heavily on evidence of intent and the specific prohibited act.

6) Remedies menu: what you can realistically demand and obtain

1) Cease-and-desist + takedown (fastest first step)

A strong demand typically asks for:

immediate cessation of all use of your name and any confusingly similar variants;
removal from all marketing and public representations;
turnover or disabling of domains/social handles incorporating your name;
correction statements (where confusion is widespread);
accounting of profits or disclosure of where and how your name was used;
confirmation of compliance by a date certain.

Even if court action is planned, a demand letter can:

establish notice (important for good/bad faith),
support claims for damages,
narrow issues and build a record.

2) Injunction (TRO / preliminary injunction / permanent injunction)

When ongoing use is causing continuing harm, injunction is often the most valuable remedy.

TRO and preliminary injunction are provisional remedies meant to prevent irreparable injury before final judgment.
Courts typically look for a clear right needing protection, material and substantial invasion of that right, and urgency/necessity.

3) Damages + accounting

Where the former business profited from your name, relief may target:

your lost endorsement fees (reasonable market value),
unjust benefits gained,
reputational harm (with proof),
and in appropriate cases, accounting of profits (common in IP-type disputes).

4) Corrective advertising / public clarification (where confusion is public)

If customers are misled into thinking you are still connected, corrective steps may be demanded in settlement or sought as part of broader relief:

disclaimers,
removal of claims,
posts clarifying termination of affiliation (crafted carefully to avoid defamation risks).

5) Administrative filings (IPOPHL / consumer protection / data privacy routes)

Administrative paths can be faster or more targeted, particularly where:

there is trademark registration or unfair competition issues;
the misuse is largely advertising/public-facing; or
the core issue is personal data processing and online publication.

6) Criminal complaint (strategic, fact-dependent)

Used when the misuse is plainly deceptive or harmful and fits a criminal statute, especially where online impersonation or fraud is involved.

7) Evidence that wins these cases

Collect and preserve proof early. Typical “best evidence” includes:

Contract documents: original signed contract, amendments, termination notice, emails about end date, handover documents.
Time-stamped marketing captures: screenshots with visible URLs and dates; archived pages; platform links; product photos.
Physical materials: flyers, brochures, tarpaulins, packaging, labels—kept with notes on where/when obtained.
Proof of public confusion: customer messages, inquiries, comments, reviews asking if you’re still involved.
Proof of harm: lost deals, reputational damage, declines in business metrics, statements from counterparties.
Corporate/business registration info: showing continued association claims (e.g., naming in “About” pages as officer/partner).
Chain of custody for digital proof: keep original files, metadata when possible; avoid editing that could raise authenticity issues.

8) Common defenses you should anticipate

A former business may argue:

Consent / license still exists: They may claim the contract allowed continued use, or there was a sell-off period.
Implied consent / course of dealing: They may point to past tolerance. This raises risks of arguments like acquiescence/laches depending on timing.
Truth / historical reference: They may say they are merely stating history (“Founded by…”)—but even “true history” can be unlawful if it is presented in a way that misleads the public into believing current involvement or endorsement.
No confusion / no damage: They may deny public confusion. This is why proof of customer confusion is powerful.
Ownership of the brand: If your name became embedded in a brand and rights were assigned, they may claim legitimate continued branding. Even then, they typically cannot falsely imply your current endorsement if that’s untrue.
Same name / own-name use: If the other party genuinely bears the same name, disputes become more nuanced and often hinge on misleading presentation and unfair competition principles.

9) Special scenarios that change the analysis

Scenario A: You were a founder, and the business name includes your name

If the company built goodwill in an eponymous name, outcomes depend on:

whether the name is registered as a trademark and who owns it;
whether you assigned rights when you exited;
whether continuing use implies your personal endorsement.

A business might retain a legacy brand name yet still be prohibited from presenting you as actively affiliated.

Scenario B: You were an endorser/influencer/brand ambassador

These cases often hinge on:

term and platforms covered by the endorsement license,
takedown timelines,
whether the public is likely to assume endorsement continues.

Scenario C: You were a consultant/employee and they still list you as connected

Misrepresentation can affect your professional reputation and expose the business to civil liability and consumer deception concerns, especially if clients rely on your supposed involvement.

Scenario D: Your name is used online (domain/social handle)

Where online impersonation or identity misuse is involved, cybercrime and platform enforcement become more relevant. Domain and handle disputes also often turn on proof of bad faith and confusion.

10) Practical enforcement roadmap (Philippines)

Step 1: Define the “use” precisely

List all instances:

business name/signage,
specific ads/posts/pages,
product packaging,
domains/social accounts,
documents where you are represented as affiliated.

Step 2: Lock in proof

Capture evidence with:

screenshots showing URL + date,
copies of physical materials,
witness statements if needed.

Step 3: Establish notice and demand compliance

A demand letter should:

cite the contract end date,
state lack of consent for continued use,
demand removal and corrective steps,
set deadlines,
reserve rights for injunction/damages.

Step 4: Choose the most effective forum(s)

Court action when you need enforceable injunction + damages.
IP enforcement when trademark/unfair competition is central.
Data privacy route when personal data processing/publication is the issue.
Consumer protection route when the harm is public deception.
Criminal route when there is clear fraudulent intent or identity misuse that fits a penal statute.

Often, a coordinated approach (civil + administrative, or civil + platform takedowns) is more effective than relying on one track.

11) Contracting lessons: how to prevent this problem in future deals

If you will ever license your name again, strong contracts typically include:

Clear definition of “Name/Persona”: name variants, nicknames, signatures, photos, voice, likeness.
Scope and platforms: exactly where it may appear.
Approval rights: prior written approval for any use; approval of final creatives.
Term + precise end date: and automatic expiration upon termination.
Mandatory takedown timeline: e.g., remove within X days from all channels.
Sell-off limits: permitted sell-off period, ban on new production or fresh ads during sell-off.
Quality control clause: especially if name functions as a brand.
No implied endorsement clause: clear language that post-termination any reference must not imply ongoing endorsement.
Liquidated damages + attorney’s fees: to deter holdover misuse.
Return/destroy clause: for marketing materials, templates, signages.
Digital asset control: ownership/transfer of domains, pages, handles, and logins.
Indemnity: business holds you harmless from claims arising from their misuse.
Dispute resolution + venue: to avoid delay.

12) Key takeaways

In the Philippines, unauthorized post-termination use of your name can trigger contract, civil, IP, consumer, data privacy, and sometimes criminal consequences.
The strongest cases focus on lack of consent + continued use + likelihood of confusion/false association + measurable harm (or at least a clear invasion of rights justifying injunction).
Injunction is often the most important remedy because it stops ongoing harm.
Even “historical” references can be unlawful if they mislead the public into believing you remain involved or endorse the business.
The outcome often turns on the contract’s termination effects, the existence of trademark/trade name rights, and the clarity of evidence showing continued misuse and public confusion.

This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice.