Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 190 views

    B0D - Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. v. Kolin Electronics

    Uploaded by

    Mharey
    Taiwan Kolin Corporation applied to register the trademark "KOLIN" for televisions and other home appliances. Kolin Electronics opposed the application, arguing that registering the identical mark would cause confusion as it already uses "KOLIN" for electronic devices. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Taiwan Kolin, finding that televisions and home appliances perform distinct functions from electronic devices and supplies, and are sold through different channels. While both products fall under Class 9, identical marks can be registered for unrelated goods within the same class. The ordinary consumer would not be confused or deceived given the differences between the products.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    B0D - Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. v. Kolin Electronics

    Uploaded by

    Mharey
    190 views2 pages
    Taiwan Kolin Corporation applied to register the trademark "KOLIN" for televisions and other home appliances. Kolin Electronics opposed the application, arguing that registering the identical mark would cause confusion as it already uses "KOLIN" for electronic devices. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Taiwan Kolin, finding that televisions and home appliances perform distinct functions from electronic devices and supplies, and are sold through different channels. While both products fall under Class 9, identical marks can be registered for unrelated goods within the same class. The ordinary consumer would not be confused or deceived given the differences between the products.

    Original Title

    B0D_Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. v. Kolin Electronics.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Taiwan Kolin Corporation applied to register the trademark "KOLIN" for televisions and other home appliances. Kolin Electronics opposed the application, arguing that registering the identical mark would cause confusion as it already uses "KOLIN" for electronic devices. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Taiwan Kolin, finding that televisions and home appliances perform distinct functions from electronic devices and supplies, and are sold through different channels. While both products fall under Class 9, identical marks can be registered for unrelated goods within the same class. The ordinary consumer would not be confused or deceived given the differences between the products.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    190 views2 pages

    B0D - Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. v. Kolin Electronics

    Uploaded by

    Mharey
    Taiwan Kolin Corporation applied to register the trademark "KOLIN" for televisions and other home appliances. Kolin Electronics opposed the application, arguing that registering the identical mark would cause confusion as it already uses "KOLIN" for electronic devices. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Taiwan Kolin, finding that televisions and home appliances perform distinct functions from electronic devices and supplies, and are sold through different channels. While both products fall under Class 9, identical marks can be registered for unrelated goods within the same class. The ordinary consumer would not be confused or deceived given the differences between the products.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd., v. Kolin Electronics Co. Inc.

    FACTS:
    On February 29, 1996, Taiwan Kolin filed with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), 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. The application 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 another application, 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.

    ISSUE: WON petitioner is entitled to its trademark registration of “KOLIN” over its specific goods
    of television sets and DVD players.

    HELD:
    The Supreme Court held that the 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.
    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;
     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.

    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.

    You might also like