It's so often applied to products that are huge shifts from what their original credibility was in, and/or with a huge gap, long enough for any original brand equity to have seemingly reset.
Furthermore, it's almost exclusively used in low-end markets where they aren't even trying to say they're competitive with today's leaders.
I could see it working better if it was an immediate cutover, potentially where existing designs and R&D were licensed along with the deal. Then you're still exploiting "fresh" brand equity rather than trying to engage in brand necromancy. Maybe there's a short enough gap for Philips to pull that out, but in the US, their brand was sort of shot already for a lot of consumer goods. They mostly traded as Magnavox or briefly Philips/Magnavox, and it seems they mostly ended up in markets like rent-to-own shops (where they want to sell marginally different crap from Walmart so you can't directly cost-compare and realize that $20 per week means spending $3,000 for a $600 TV)
I saw a Fisher branded Bluetooth speaker the other day. Feels like we had both models there-- the name got sold a couple times in the 60s/70s, but they remained a consistent market presence under the new ownership, slowly degrading over the next 20 or so years. Sanyo, who I think was the end owner then, probably got a lot of value out of the brand. Now someone's trying to jab electrodes into the corpse long after the value is gone and I suspect the new-brand won't last 20 years.