FACTS:

Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. (Taiwan Kolin) filed a trademark application with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) for the use of "KOLIN" on various goods, including televisions and DVD players. The application was considered abandoned but subsequently revived, with petitioner selecting Class 9 as the subject of its application. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. (Kolin Electronics) opposed the application, claiming that it already registered the "KOLIN" mark for similar goods. Kolin Electronics' registration was the subject of a prior dispute between the parties, in which Taiwan Kolin's claim of being the prior registrant and user of the "KOLIN" mark was denied. The BLA-IPO denied petitioner's application, citing the similarity of the marks and proof of confusion among consumers. The IPO Director General reversed the decision, stating that product classification alone should not be the decisive factor. The CA, however, ruled in favor of Kolin Electronics, finding the marks to be confusingly similar and the products to be closely related. Petitioner filed a petition for review assailing the CA's decision. The main issue is whether petitioner is entitled to trademark registration of "KOLIN" for television sets and DVD players.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the identical mark used on products belonging to the same classification should result in the denial of the registration application.

2. Whether the similarity of the products involved, rather than the classification, should be the determining factor in trademark infringement.

3. Whether the products covered by petitioner's application and respondent's registration are related.

4. Whether the approval of petitioner's application is likely to cause confusion or deceive consumers.

5. Whether there is a likelihood of confusion between petitioner's trademark application and respondent's registered trademark.

6. Whether the differences between the two marks are sufficient to prevent confusion.

7. Whether or not there is confusing similarity between the trademarks used by the parties.

RULING:

1. The Court held that the identical mark used on products belonging to the same classification does not necessarily result in trademark infringement and should not automatically preclude the registration of an identical mark. The Court cited previous cases wherein trademark registrations were approved despite the identical marks being used on goods belonging to the same classification. Hence, the argument of respondent that the registration application should be denied based on identical marks used on products in the same classification is specious.

2. The Court ruled that the similarity of the products involved, rather than the classification, should be the focus in determining possible trademark infringement. The mere fact that one person has adopted and used a trademark on their goods should not prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark by others on unrelated articles of a different kind. Therefore, the Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in denying the registration application based on the alleged relation between the products covered by the application and the products covered by respondent's registration.

3. The Court held that the products covered by petitioner's application and respondent's registration are unrelated. The classification of the products under the Nice Classification List is only one consideration in determining relatedness. In this case, the Court considered factors such as the nature, function, and purpose of the goods, as well as the channels of trade through which they are distributed and sold. It was found that petitioner's televisions and DVD players belong to audiovisual equipment, while respondent's goods fall under devices for controlling the distribution and use of electricity.

4. The Court ruled that the approval of petitioner's application is not likely to cause confusion or deceive consumers. It emphasized that there are no rigid set rules in determining similarity of trademarks, and each case should be decided on its own merits, considering factors such as the goods or services involved and the usual purchaser's character and attitude. In this case, the Court found that the ordinary intelligent buyer is not likely to be confused between the trademarks "KOLIN" used on petitioner's goods and respondent's goods, considering the differences in classification and nature of the products.

5. The Court finds that there is no likelihood of confusion between petitioner's trademark application and respondent's registered trademark. The distinct visual and aural differences between the marks, although minimal, are sufficient to distinguish one brand from the other.

6. The Court holds that the differences between the two marks are sufficient to prevent any confusion that may arise. The differences, although subtle, are significant enough to prevent the ordinary intelligent buyer, who is familiar with the products and more discerning, from being deceived.

7. No, there is no confusing similarity between the trademarks used by the parties. The Court found that there are significant differences in the trademarks used by the parties, such as the shape and color scheme. The Court also considered the nature of the products involved and concluded that the ordinary intelligent buyer would be able to distinguish between the two trademarks.

PRINCIPLES:

• Identical marks used on products belonging to the same classification do not automatically result in trademark infringement.

• The similarity of the products involved, rather than the classification, should be the determining factor in trademark infringement.

• The arbitrary classification or general description of the properties or characteristics of the products should not be given more weight than the similarity of the products themselves.

• The mere fact that one person has adopted and used a trademark on their goods does not prevent others from adopting and using the same trademark on unrelated articles of a different kind.

• A certificate of trademark registration confers upon the trademark owner the exclusive right to sue those who have adopted a similar mark not only in connection with the goods or services specified in the certificate but also with those that are related thereto.

• The relatedness of goods should be determined by considering several factors, including the business to which the goods belong, the class of product, the nature and cost of the articles, the purpose of the goods, and the channels of trade through which the goods flow, among others.

• The classification of goods under the Nice Classification List is only one factor to consider in determining relatedness, and it is not sufficient to establish relatedness based solely on the classification.

• In trademark cases, there are no rigid set rules in determining similarity of trademarks, and each case must be decided on its merits, with due regard to the goods or services involved and the usual purchaser's character and attitude.

• In trademark cases, precedent must be studied in the light of the facts of a particular case.

• The likelihood of confusion in trademark cases is assessed from the perspective of the ordinary intelligent buyer, who is familiar with the goods in question and exercises caution in purchasing.

• The cost and nature of the goods can affect the level of care exercised by buyers, with more expensive and luxury items being subject to more careful consideration.

• The distinctions between two marks, although minimal, can be sufficient to prevent confusion.

• The registration of a trademark does not mean that it covers all goods or services, but only those that are related or similar.

• The test for determining the likelihood of confusion is whether the ordinary intelligent buyer, exercising ordinary care and possessing normal observation, would be likely to be deceived or misled by the similarity of the marks.