G.R. No. 209843 March 25, 2015
TAIWAN KOLIN CORPORATION, LTD., Petitioner, vs. KOLIN ELECTRONICS CO., INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. filed a trademark application for “KOLIN” on February 29, 1996, covering goods including colored televisions under Classes 9, 11, and 21. The application was abandoned but later revived, with petitioner electing Class 9, specifically for television sets, DVD players, and other audio/video equipment. Respondent Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. opposed the application, arguing the mark is identical to its own “KOLIN” mark registered on November 23, 2003, for goods under Class 9 such as automatic voltage regulators and converters. The parties had a prior dispute where Taiwan Kolin opposed Kolin Electronics’ application, but Kolin Electronics secured registration. The Bureau of Legal Affairs of the IPO (BLA-IPO) denied Taiwan Kolin’s application, citing Section 123(d) of the Intellectual Property Code, as the marks were identical and used on goods in the same class. The IPO Director General reversed, allowing the application for “television and DVD player” only, emphasizing that product classification alone is not decisive and the goods were not related. The Court of Appeals reversed the IPO Director General, reinstating the BLA-IPO’s denial, finding the marks confusingly similar and that televisions could be within the normal expansion of Kolin Electronics’ business.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner is entitled to its trademark registration of “KOLIN” over its specific goods of television sets and DVD players.

RULING

Yes, the petition is impressed with merit. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the Decision of the IPO Director General. The Court held that identical marks may be registered for products from the same classification if the goods are not related. The determination of confusing similarity depends on the actual use of the marks and the likelihood of deception or confusion among consumers. The Court found that television sets and DVD players are not closely related to Kolin Electronics’ goods like automatic voltage regulators and converters. The nature, purpose, and end-users of the products differ significantly. The Court emphasized that product classification under the Nice Classification is merely administrative and does not determine relatedness. There was no evidence of actual confusion, and the marks, while identical, were used on unrelated goods, thus registration should be allowed subject to the limitation for “television and DVD player.”