Taiwan Kolin Corp. vs. Kolin Electronics

DELOS REYES, MILES R.
TRADEMARKS INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY LAW
TAIWAN KOLIN CORPORATION, LTD., Petitioner, vs. KOLIN ELECTRONICS

CO., INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 209843, March 25, 2015
FACTS:
On February 29, 1996, Taiwan Kolin filed with the Intellectual Property Office
(IPO), then Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfer, a
trademark application, for the use of “KOLIN” on a combination of goods,
including colored televisions, refrigerators, window-type and split-type air
conditioners, electric fans and water dispensers. Said goods allegedly fall under
Classes 9, 11, and 21 of the Nice Classification (NCL).
IPO required petitioner to elect one class of good for its coverage. Petitioner
elects class 9 as the subject of its, particularly: television sets, cassette
recorder, VCD Amplifiers, camcorders and other audio/video electronic
equipment, flat iron, vacuum cleaners, cordless handsets, videophones,
facsimile machines, teleprinters, cellular phones and automatic goods vending
machine. The application would in time be duly published.
On July 13, 2006, respondent Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. (Kolin Electronics)
opposed petitioner’s application, As argued, the mark Taiwan Kolin seeks to
register is identical, if not confusingly similar, with its “KOLIN” mark registered
on November 23, 2003, covering the following products under Class 9 of the
NCL: automatic voltage regulator, converter, recharger, stereo booster, AC-DC
regulated power supply, step-down transformer, and PA amplified AC-DC.
Petitioner postulates, in the main, that its goods are not closely related to those
of Kolin Electronics. On the other hand, respondent hinges its case on the CA’s
findings that its and petitioner’s products are closely-related. Thus, granting
petitioner’s application for trademark registration, according to respondent,
would cause confusion as to the public.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to its trademark registration of

“KOLIN” over its specific goods of television sets and DVD players.
2. Provided that the Court granted the application of the petitioner for the
use of mark “KOLIN”, will it confuse an ordinary intelligent buyer?
HELD:
1. YES. The Court ruled that the products covered by the trademark
sought to be registered by Taiwan Kolin, on the one hand, and those
1|Page
DELOS REYES, MILES R. TRADEMARKS INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY LAW
covered by the prior issued certificate of registration in favor of Kolin
Electronics, on the other, fall under the same categories in the NCL is
not the sole and decisive factor in determining a possible violation
of Kolin Electronics’ intellectual property right should petitioner’s
application be granted. It is hornbook doctrine, as held in the above-
cited cases, the emphasis should be on the similarity of the
products involved and not on the arbitrary classification or
general description of their properties or characteristics. The mere
fact that one person has adopted and used a trademark on his goods
would not, without more, prevent the adoption and use of the same
trademark by others on unrelated articles of a different kind. The
products covered by petitioner’s application and respondent’s
registration are unrelated.
In resolving one of the pivotal issues in this case––whether or not the products
of the parties involved are related––the doctrine in Mighty Corporation is
authoritative. There, the Court held that the goods should be tested against
several factors before arriving at a sound conclusion on the question of
relatedness. Among these are
(a) the business (and its location) to which the goods belong;
(b) the class of product to which the goods belong;
(c) the product’s quality, quantity, or size, including the nature of the package,
wrapper or container;
(d) the nature and cost of the articles;
(e) the descriptive properties, physical attributes or essential characteristics
with reference to their form, composition, texture or quality;
(f) the purpose of the goods;
(g) whether the article is bought for immediate consumption, that is, day-to-
day household items;
(h) the fields of manufacture;
(i) the conditions under which the article is usually purchased; and
(j) the channels of trade through which the goods flow, how they are
distributed, marketed, displayed and sold.
As mentioned, the classification of the products under the NCL is merely part
and parcel of the factors to be considered in ascertaining whether the goods are
related. It is not sufficient to state that the goods involved herein are electronic
products under Class 9 in order to establish relatedness between the goods, for
this only accounts for one of many considerations enumerated in Mighty
Corporation. In this case, credence is accorded to petitioner’s assertions that:
a. Taiwan Kolin’s goods are classified as home appliances as opposed to

Kolin Electronics’ goods which are power supply and audio equipment
accessories;
2|Page
DELOS REYES, MILES R. TRADEMARKS INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY LAW
b. Taiwan Kolin’s television sets and DVD players perform distinct function
and purpose from Kolin Electronics’ power supply and audio equipment;
and
c. Taiwan Kolin sells and distributes its various home appliance products
on wholesale and to accredited dealers, whereas Kolin Electronics’ goods
are sold and flow through electrical and hardware stores.
Clearly then, it was erroneous for respondent to assume over the CA to

conclude that all electronic products are related and that the coverage of one
electronic product necessarily precludes the registration of a similar mark over
another. In this digital age wherein electronic products have not only
diversified by leaps and bounds, and are geared towards interoperability, it is
difficult to assert readily, as respondent simplistically did, that all devices that
require plugging into sockets are necessarily related goods.
It bears to stress at this point that the list of products included in Class 9 can
be sub-categorized into five (5) classifications, namely: (1) apparatus and
instruments for scientific or research purposes, (2) information technology and
audiovisual equipment, (3) apparatus and devices for controlling the
distribution and use of electricity, (4) optical apparatus and instruments, and
(5) safety equipment.42 From this sub-classification, it becomes apparent
that petitioner’s products, i.e., televisions and DVD players, belong to
audiovisiual equipment, while that of respondent, consisting of
automatic voltage regulator, converter, recharger, stereo booster, AC-DC
regulated power supply, step-down transformer, and PA amplified AC-DC,
generally fall under devices for controlling the distribution and use of
electricity.
2. No. The ordinarily intelligent buyer is not likely to be confused. The

distinct visual and aural differences between the two trademarks
“KOLIN”, although appear to be minimal, are sufficient to distinguish
between one brand or another. The casual buyer is predisposed to be
more cautious, discriminating, and would prefer to mull over his
purchase because the products involved are various kind of electronic
products which are relatively luxury items and not considered affordable.
They are not ordinarily consumable items such as soy sauce, ketsup or
soap which are of minimal cost. Hence, confusion is less likely.
3|Page

Taiwan Kolin Corp. vs. Kolin Electronics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taiwan Kolin Corp. vs. Kolin Electronics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taiwan Kolin Corp. vs. Kolin Electronics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DELOS REYES, MILES R.

TAIWAN KOLIN CORPORATION, LTD., Petitioner, vs. KOLIN ELECTRONICS

G.R. No. 209843, March 25, 2015

1. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to its trademark registration of

a. Taiwan Kolin’s goods are classified as home appliances as opposed to

Clearly then, it was erroneous for respondent to assume over the CA to

2. No. The ordinarily intelligent buyer is not likely to be confused. The

You might also like