Scribd
Upload
123 views1 page

Taiwan Kolin Corporation, LTD., Petitioner v. Kolin Electronics Co. Inc.

Taiwan Kolin Corporation applied to register the trademark "KOLIN" for various goods including televisions and DVD players. Kolin Electronics opposed the application, arguing the marks were confusingly similar for goods in Class 9 such as power supplies. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Taiwan Kolin, finding the goods were unrelated and the ordinary consumer would not be deceived or confused by the different marks and goods. Specifically, Taiwan Kolin's goods were home appliances versus Kolin Electronics' audio equipment accessories, and the goods served distinct functions and were sold through different channels.

Uploaded by

Alfonso Vargas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
123 views1 page

Taiwan Kolin Corporation, LTD., Petitioner v. Kolin Electronics Co. Inc.

Taiwan Kolin Corporation applied to register the trademark "KOLIN" for various goods including televisions and DVD players. Kolin Electronics opposed the application, arguing the marks were confusingly similar for goods in Class 9 such as power supplies. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Taiwan Kolin, finding the goods were unrelated and the ordinary consumer would not be deceived or confused by the different marks and goods. Specifically, Taiwan Kolin's goods were home appliances versus Kolin Electronics' audio equipment accessories, and the goods served distinct functions and were sold through different channels.

Uploaded by

Alfonso Vargas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd., Petitioner v.

Kolin Electronics Co. Inc.,


Facts: On February 29, 1996, Taiwan Kolin filed with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), docketed as Application
No. 4-1996-106310, 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. Application No. 4-1996-106310 would
eventually be considered abandoned for Taiwan Kolin’s failure to respond to IPO’s Paper No. 5 requiring it to elect
one class of good for its coverage. However, the same application was subsequently revived through Application
Serial No. 4-2002-011002, with petitioner electing Class 9 as the subject of its application, 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.
On July 13, 2006, respondent Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. (Kolin Electronics) opposed petitioner’s revived application
arguing that 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.5cralawred

Issue:

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

Ruling: The Supreme Court held that he petitioner’s trademark registration not only covers unrelated good, but is also
incapable of deceiving the ordinary intelligent buyer. The ordinary purchaser must be thought of as having, and
credited with, at least a modicum of intelligence to be able to see the differences between the two trademarks in
question.

On the arguments that both their goods belong to Class 9 of the NCL, the Supreme Court ruled that identical marks
may be registered for products from the same classification. The mere uniformity in categorization, by itself, does not
automatically preclude the registration of what appears to be an identical mark, if that be the case.

Moreover, the Supreme Court stated that the products covered by petitioner’s application and
respondent’s registration are unrelated. It agreed with the petitioner on the following:

 Taiwan Kolin’s goods are classified as home appliances as opposed to Kolin Electronics’ goods which are
power supply and audio equipment accessories;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
 Taiwan Kolin’s television sets and DVD players perform distinct function and purpose from Kolin Electronics’
power supply and audio equipment; and
 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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy