Kolin Electronics Co, Inc., vs Kolin Philippines International, Inc.

,
G.R. No. 228165 9 February 2021
Caguioa, J.:
Kolin Electronics Industrial Supply (KEIS), owned by a certain Miguel Tan acquired the
Trademark for KOLIN covering products under Class 9: automatic voltage regulator,
converter, recharger, stereo booster, AC-DC. Taiwan Kolin Co, filed for a trademark
application “KOLIN” initially covering goods of color television, refrigerator, window-type
air conditioner, split type air conditioner, electric fan, and water dispenser. In an earlier
ruling, KECI owned the ownership over the “kolin” mark against TKC.
In the present case, TKC included the following goods namely, ‘Cassette recorder,
VCD, electronics etc. belonging to class 9.
The Supreme Court ruled that KPII should not be allowed to register its “kolin mark”. It
ruled that there is a likelihood of confusion based on Section 123.1 (d) of the IP Code,
applying the Dominancy Test. As pointed out by Justice Leonen, the Dominancy Test is
what is prescribed under the law, and thus sabandoning completely the Holistic Test.
Other than likelihood of confusion, there is actual confusion between the two marks,
because of the clients calling for repair of their products, to the other. The consumers
thus, cannot eliminate the confusion between these two marks.
The court further abandons the use of product or service classification as a factor in
determining relatedness or non-relatedness. The goods covered by the two marks in
question are related, which in turn, creates a likelihood of confusion.
This case indeed is a landmark case, wherein the Honorable Court established new
doctrines in Trademark law. What caught my attention the most, is how the Court
explained that there is no case where the two test in determining the resemblance of
marks, were used. Indeed, the Court has cleared up the confusion with regard to what
test shall prevail in order to guide the practitioners in Trademark Law.
From the point of view of one studying Intellectual Property law, this case has made an
advancement in the prevailing jurisprudence of Trademark law in the Philippines.
Usually, the US jurisprudence is our basis for studying, and interpreting the Intellectual
Property Law. Having jurisprudence from our own, provides for advancement with
regard to our Intellectual Property law.

Ubalde, Geelleanne L.