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: WIN the omducts 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 propartios 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 Kolin’s 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. ##