Taiwan Kolin vs Kolin Electronics

Case Digest GR 209843 March 25 2015

Facts:
Taiwan Kolin Corp sought to register the trademark KOLIN in Class 9 on the following
combination of goods: 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.
Kolin Electronics opposed the application on the ground that the trademark KOLIN is identical,
if not confusingly similar, with its registered trademark KOLIN which covers the following
products under Class 9 of the Nice Classification (NCL): automatic voltage regulator, converter,
recharger, stereo booster, AC-DC regulated power supply, step-down transformer, and PA
amplified AC-DC. Kolin Electronics argued that the products are not only closely-related because
they fall under the same classification, but also because they are inherently similar for being
electronic products and are plugged into electric sockets and perform a useful function.
Issue: W/N the products are closely-related
Held:
No, the products are not related and the use of the trademark KOLIN on them would not likely
cause confusion. To confer exclusive use of a trademark, emphasis should be on the similarity or
relatedness of the goods and/or services involved and not on the arbitrary classification or
general description of their properties or characteristics.
First, products classified under Class 9 can be further classified into five categories. Accordingly,
the goods covered by the competing marks between Taiwan Kolin and Kolin Electronics fall under
different categories. Taiwan Kolins goods are categorized as audio visual equipments, while
Kolin Electronics goods fall under devices for controlling the distribution and use of electricity.
Thus, it is erroneous to assume that all electronic products are closely related and that the
coverage of one electronic product necessarily precludes the registration of a similar mark over
another.
Second, 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. ##