3aepublic of Tbe, Tlbilippines: $' Upreme !court

3aepublic of tbe ,tlbilippines
$'>Upreme <!Court
;fManila
EN BANC
KOLIN ELECTRONICS CO., G.R. No. 228165

INC.,
Petitioner, Present:
PERALTA, CJ.,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
CAGUIOA,
GESMUNDO,
HERNANDO,
- versus - CARANDANG,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
INTING,
ZALAMEDA,
M.LOPEZ,
DELOS SANTOS,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO, and
J. LOPEZ, JJ.
KOLIN PHILIPPINES Promulgated: .

INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Respondent. February 9, 2021 1
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
CAGUIOA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court, which seeks to reverse and set aside the following
dispositions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 131917:
1. Decision2 da!ed -{\pril 29, 2016 reversing the ruling of the Director
General of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO-DG) in Appeal No.
1
Rollo, pp. 9-28A.
2
Id. at 30-47. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and concurred in by Associate
Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Elihu A. Ybanez.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 228165
· 14-09-643 (IPC No. 14-2007-00167), g1vmg due course to the

trademark application of Kolin Philippines International, Inc.
(KPII), and denying the opposition of Kolin Electronics Co., Inc.
(KECI); and
2. Resolution4 dated November 4, 2016, denying KECI's motion for

reconsideration.
Facts
Antecedent cases involving related parties
1. The KECI Ownership Case
On August 17, 1993, Kolin Electronics Industrial Supply (KEIS),

owned by a certain Miguel Tan, filed with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks
and Technology Transfer (BPTTT; now known as the Intellectual Property
Office or IPO) an application for registration of Trademark Application No.
87497 for l(OLI1V covering the following products under Class 9:
automatic voltage regulator, converter, recharger, stereo booster, AC-DC
regulated power supply, step-down transformer, and PA amplifier AC-DC. 5
In a Deed of Assignment of Assets dated November 20, 1995, Miguel

Tan assigned in favor ofKECI all the assets. and merchandise stocks of KEIS,
including its pending application for registration of the KOLIN mark. 6 The
trademark has been continuously used in various products under the said
classification, and the products are being offered for sale at KECI' s business
establishments. 7
On February 29, 1996, Taiwan Kolin Co., Ltd. (TKC) filed with the
BPTTT Trademark Application No. 4-1996-106310 8 for KOLIN initially
covering the following goods: "color television, refrigerator, window-type air
conditioner, split-type air conditioner, electric fan, and water dispenser". 9
During the pendency of its application, TKC filed a verified Notice of

Opposition on July 22, 1998 against KECI' s trademark application for
KOLIN. TKC claimed that it is the owner of Taiwan registrations for
KOLIN and KOLIN SOLID SERIES and that it has a pending application for
3
Also appears as Appeal Case No. 14-09-64 in some part; of the rollo.
4
Rollo, pp. 49-50.
5
Id. at 79.
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
See <https://www3.wipo.int/branddb/ph/en/showData.jsp?ID=PHTM.419961063 l O>.
9
Rollo, p. 119. NB.: Since the goods fell under Classes 9, 11, and 21, the trademark examiner required
TKC to elect one class of goods for the subject application. Eventually, IPO-DG allowed the registration
of Trademark Application No. 4-1996-106310 for Class 9 goods limited to "television and DVD player".
~
KOLIN, 10 thus the ~grarit of the /(OLIN application would cause TKC
grave and irreparable damage to its business reputation and goodwill because
/(OLIN is identical, if not confusingly similar, to TKC's marks. TKC further
claimed that ifKECI's application for KOLIN would be granted, this would
likely mislead the public as to the nature, quality, and characteristics of its
goods or products bearing the "KOLIN" trademark. 11
On December 27, 2002, Director Estrellita Beltran-Abelardo of the

Intellectual Property Office Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPO-BLA) rendered
Decision No. 2002-46 12 (Inter Partes Case No. 14-1998-00050) denying
TKC 's opposition and giving due course to KECI' s trademark application for
/(OLIN. 13 Premised on the factual finding that the subject marks are "the
same or almost identical," 14 the IPO-BLA then opted to focus on the
discussion of the prior adopter and user of the mark. 15 The IPO-BLA
examined the evidence presented by the parties and concluded that KECI "is
the prior adopter and user of the mark 'KOLIN' in the Philippines, having
been able to prove the~date of first use of its mark in the year 1989, which is
ahead of [TKC's] use in the Philippines xx x in the year 1996." 16 Thus,
TKC's opposition was denied andKECI's trademark application for KOLIN
was given due course.
TKC appealed the decision to the IPO-DG, which, in tum, issued a

Decision 17 on November 6, 2003 sustaining the ruling of the IPO-BLA. 18 The
IPO eventually issued a Certificate of Registration for KOLIN in favor of
KECI. 19 In the November 29, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer,
KECI, through counsel, filed a notice informing the public of the issuance of
the certificate in its favor, and claimed exclusive right of usage over the
KOLIN mark. 20
On December 10, 2004, TKC filed a petition for review with the CA
with a prayer for preliminary injunction and/or the issuance of a temporary
restraining order docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 80641, urging the CA to enjoin
KECI from asserting exclusive rights to use the KOLIN mark. 21
10
Id. at 55
11
Id. at 80.
12
Id. at 54-64.
13 Id. at 65, 81.
14
Id. at 58.
15
Id. The relevant excerpt of page 5 of the IPO-BLA decision reads: "Considering that the marks under
contention are the same or almost identical, the main issue to be resolved in this case is, WHO
BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS THE PRIOR ADOPTER AND USER OF THE TRADEMARK
"KOLIN" AND THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ITS REGISTRATION." (Emphasis supplied; emphasis
in the original omitted)
16
Id. at 62. Emphasis and underscoring omitted.
17
Id. at 65-77. IPO-DG Decision on Appeal No. 14-03-24, Inter Partes Case No. 14-1998-00050; penned
by IPO Director General Emma C. Francisco.
18
Id. at 77, 83-84.
19
Id. at 84-85.
20 Id. at 85.
21 Id.
On July 31, 2006, the CA issued a Decisfon22 against TKC and in favor
of KECI. The CA clarified that the Trademark Law23 was applicable since it
was still in effect at the time of the filing and during the pendency of the
trademark applications of both parties. 24 Accordingly, the CA held that there
must be actual use thereof in commerce to acquire ownership of a mark. 25 The
CA found as undisputed that KEIS, the predecessor-in-interest of KECI, had
been using the mark in the Philippines since February 17,
1989, prior to the filing of the trademark application for KOLIN in 1993. 26
While TKC claimed prior use of the mark in foreignjurisdictions 27 as early as
1986, 28 the CA agreed with the IPO-BLA and IPO-DG that the concept of
"actual use" under the Trademark Law refers to use in the Philippines, and not
abroad. 29 Further, the assignment of rights involving the KOLIN mark to
KECI was not raised as an issue in the case. 30 On the issue of priority being
claimed by TKC, the CA agreed with the decision of IPO-DG that, whether
under the Trademark Law or the Intellectual Property Code31 (IP Code),
TKC's "claim of xx x priority right is unavailing." 32 Accordingly, the CA
dismissed TKC's petition for lack of m.eriCand affirmed the IPO-DG's
decision. 33
TKC initially appealed the CA decision by filing with the Court a

motion for extension to file a petition for review. 34 However, on September 6,
2007, TKC filed a Manifestation withdrawing its motion for extension
because "[TKC was] no longer interested in pursuing an appeal." 35
Accordingly, on September 26, 2007, a Resolution was issued by the Court
considering the case "CLOSED and TERMINATED." In an Entry of
Judgment, the Resolution was considered final and executory on November
16, 2007 36 (the KECI ownership case).
Thus, by virtue of the KECI ownership case, KECI is the adjudicated

owner of the mark under the Trademark Law as against TKC.
22
Id. at 78-102. Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justices
Portia Alifio Hormachuelos and Santiago Javier Ranada.
23
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 166, AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR T'HE REGISTRATION AND PROTECTION OF
TRADE-MARKS, TRADE-NAMES AND SERVICE MARKS, DEFINING UNFAIR COMPETITION AND FALSE
MARKING AND PROVIDING REMEDIES AGAINST THE SAME, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (1947), as
amended.
24
Rollo, p. 92.
25
Id. at 95.
26 Id.
27
Id. at 87.
28
NB.: TKC's Trademark Registration Certificate was issued in Taiwan on December 1, 1986 but the
same had expired on September 15, 1996; see id. at 99.
29
Rollo, pp. 96-97.
30 Id. at 95.
31
R.A. No. 8293, AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE AND ESTABLISHING THE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE, PROVIDING FOR ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES (1997).
32
Rollo, p. 99.
33
Id. at 101-102.
34
See id. at 103.
35 Id.
36 Id.
2. The Taiwan Kolin case
However, in another case that went up to the Court, the registration of

another KOLIN mark not owned by KECI was allowed. In G.R. No. 209843
entitled Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. v. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. 37
(Taiwan Kolin case), promulgated on March 25, 2015, the Court gave due
course to TKC's Trademark Application for KOLIN.
To recall, before filing an opposition case 38 against KECI's application

for ](OLIN, TKC had filed on February 29, 1996 Trademark Application
No. 4-1996-106310 for KOLIN initially covering the following goods:
"color television, refrigerator, window-type air conditioner, split-type air
conditioner, electric fan, and water dispenser."
On February 10, 1999, Paper No. 5 was issued by the trademark examiner-
in-charge stating that the goods enumerated in TKC' s application fall under
Classes 9, 11, and 21 of the Nice Classification (NCL), thus, TKC was required
to elect one class of goods for its application for KOLIN. 39 However, the
application was considered abandoned as of April 18, 1999 because TKC failed
to respond to Paper No. 5. 40 On September 14, 1999, TKC filed a petition to
revive the application stating, among other things, that in response to Paper No.
5, it was electing Class 9 for its application. 41 Further, TKC requested the
inclusion of the following goods in its application: "cassette recorder, VCD,
whoofer (sic), amplifiers, camcorders and other audio/video electronic
equipment, flat iron, vacuum cleaners, cordless handsets, videophones, facsimile
machines, teleprinters, cellular phones, automatic goods vending machines and
other electronic equipment belonging to class 9." 42
In an Order dated March 14, 2001, the Bureau of Trademarks granted

TKC' s petition. 43 Consequently, Trademark Application No. 4-1996-106310
was published in the IPO Electronic Gazette for Trademarks on May 16,
2006. 44 The "television sets" was, however, not included in the enumeration
of goods in the published Trademark Application. 45
37
G.R. No. 209843, March 25, 2015, 754 SCRA 556. Penned by Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco,
Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Diosdado M. Peralta, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Bienvenido L.
Reyes and Francis H. Jardeleza
38
N.B. The opposition proceedings where the KECI ownership case stemmed from.
39
Id.; see IPO-DG Decision on Opposition to Trademark Application No. 4-1996-106310, p. 1, available
at <http:1/121.58.254.45/ipcaselibrary/ipcasepdfi'AP IPC 14-2009-000027 Decision.pdf>.
40
Id.; id.
41
Id.; id.
42
Id.; id.
43
Id. at 120; id. at 2.
44
Id.; id.
45
Id.; id.
.f
KECI filed an opposition against TKC' s application with the IPO-

BLA on July 13, 2006 46 based on the fact that it is the registered owner of
the J(()LIN 47 mark, which it claimed was confusingly similar to TKC's
application for KOLIN. The case was docketed as Inter Partes Case No.
14-2006-00096.
On November 7, 2006, TKC filed an Answer to the Opposition,

claiming, among others, that its Trademark Application No. 4-1996-106310
"includes television sets and that this trademark application later became
Trademark Application No. 4-2002-011002 filed on [December 27, 2002]
when it was re-filed/revived after the handling lawyer delayed the submission
of requirements for the first application. " 48
The IPO-BLA rendered Decision No. 2007-118 49 dated August 16,

2007 sustaining KECI's opposition case and rejecting TKC's application for
KOLIN.
On March 27, 2009, TKC filed an Appeal Memorandum with the IPO-
DG, claiming that the IPO-BLA erred in denying its application without any
allowance for use limitation or restriction on televisions and DVD players. 50
Noting that TKC only wanted its KOLIN application to be given due
course subject to the use limitation or restriction for television and DVD
player, 51 the IPO-DG issued a Decision52 on November 23, 2011 granting
TKC's appeal and allowing the registration of TKC's mark with a
limitation/restriction for the goods "televis\on ~nd DVD player". 53
Aggrieved, KECI appealed to the CA.
On April 30, 2013, the CA issued a Decision54 in CA-G.R. SP No.

122565 reversing and setting aside the IPO-DG's decision and reinstating the
IPO-BLA decision. 55 It ruled in favor of KECI based on the following
grounds: (a) the "KOLIN" mark sought to be registered by TKC is
46
NB.: This is the date stated in the Taiwan Kolin case, supra note 37, at 559. However, the IPO-BLA
decision, IPO-DG decision, and CA decision state that the opposition was filed on July 17, 2006.
47
Registered on November 23, 2003; covered by Application No. 4-1993-087497, rollo, p. 52. See also
<https://www3.wipo.int/branddb/ph/en/showData.jsp?ID=PHTM.41993087497> for details regarding the
mark.
48
Rollo, p. 121; see IPO-DG Decision on Opposition to Trademark Application No. 4-1996-106310, supra
note 39, at 3.
49
Id. at 105-118. Penned by IPO-BLA Director Estrellita Beltran-Abelardo. See IPO-BLA Decision
available at <http:/1121.58.254.45/ipcaselibrary/ipcasepdf/IPC 14-2006-00096.pdt>.
50
Id. at 122; see page 4 ofIPO-DG Decision on Opposition to Trademark Application No. 4-1996-106310,
supra note 39, at 4.
51
Id. at 123; id. at 5.
52
Id. at 119-126. Penned by IPO Director General Ricardo R. Blancaflor. See IPO-DG Decision on
Opposition to Trademark Application No. 4-1996-106310, supra note 39.
53
Id. at 126; see id. at 8.
54
Rollo, pp. 127-139. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justices
Sesinando E. Villon and Fiorito S. Macalino.
55
Id. at 138.
confusingly similar to KECI's "KOLIN" registration since "[t]he only

difference is [KECI' s] mark is italicized and colored black while that of
[TKC] is in pantone red color;" 56 (b) there are no other designs, special shape
or easily identifiable earmarks that would differentiate the products of both
competing companies; 57 and (c) the intertwined use of television sets with
amplifier, booster and voltage regulator bolstered the fact that televisions can
be considered as within the normal expansion of KECI, and is thereby
deemed covered by its trademark as explicitly protected under Section 138 of
the IP Code; 58 and (d) the denial of TKC's application would prevent the
likelihood of confusion resulting from the use of an identical mark to closely
related goods. 59 TKC moved to reconsider the decision, but this was denied
by the CA.
TKC then filed an appeal to the Court.
It is important lo highlight that there were three (3) marks involved

m the Taiwan Kolin case (I) KECI's trademark registration No. 4-1993-
087497; (2) TKC's trademark application No. 4-1996-106310, which was
opposed by KECI; and (3) TKC's trademark application No. 4-2002-011002,
which was allegedly the "revived" version of TKC' s application.
For ease of reference, the subject marks are included in the following
table:
KECl's mark TKC's opposed TKC's "revived"

trademark application
a lication
Marks _[(0LJN6o KOLIN61
A lication No. 4-1993-087497 4-1996-106310 4-2002-011002
Filing Date August 17, 1993 February 29, December 27, 2002
1996
Current Sfo.tus Registered Reidstered Refused for non-
' filing ofD.AU/DNU
Class Covered 9 9 9
Goods Covered Automatic Voltage Television and Television Sets,
Regulator, DVD player AudioNideo
Converter, Electronic
Recharger, Stereo Equipment and
Booster, AC-DC Similar Appliances
Regulated Power
Supply, Step-Down
Transformer, PA
Amplified AC-DC
56
Id. at 135.
57 Id.
58
Id. at 138.
59 Id.
60
Id. at 52; see also <https://www3.wipo.int/branddb/ph/en/showData.jsp?ID=PHTM.41993087497>.
61
See <https://www3.wipo.int/branddb/ph/en/showData.jsp?ID=PHTM.41996106310>.
62
See <https://www3.wipo.int/branddb/ph/en/showData.jsp?ID=PHTM.42002011002>.
To clarify, while Trademark Application No. 4-1996-106310 was

indeed revived, 63 it was not through another separate application, contrary to
TKC's statement. 64
Keeping this in mind, the Taiwan Kolin case ruled in favor ofTKC.
The Court's Third Division stated that identical marks may be

registered for products from the same classification, citing the discussion in
Mighty Corporation v. E. & J Gallo Winery 65 (Mighty Corporation). 66 It also
held "that emphasis should be on the similarity of the products involved and
not on the arbitrary classification or general description of their properties or
characteristics. The mere fact that one person has adopted and used a
trademark on his goods would not, without more, prevent the adoption and
use of the same trademark by others on unrelated articles of a different kind. " 67
The Court's Third Division also stated that the CA's approach and
reasoning "fail[ed] to persuade" and ruled that the products covered by TKC 's
application and KECI' s registration are unrelated. 68 In saying that the CA
decision was wrong, the Court's Third Div1sion only cited and gave credence
to the following assertions by TKC to establish that the goods are unrelated:
a. TKC's goods are classified as home appliances as

opposed to KECI' s goods, which are power supply and audio
equipment accessories;
b. TKC's television sets and DVD players perform

functions and purposes distinct from KECI' s power supply and
audio equipment; and
c. TKC sells and distributes its various home appliance

products on wholesale and to accredited dealers, whereas KECI' s
goods are sold and flow through electrical and hardware stores. 69
The Court's Third Division said that the list of products under Class 9
can be sub-categorized into five different ciassiiications and that the products
covered by TKC's and KECI's marks fall under different sub-categories. It
then made a side-by-side comparison of the marks to state that the ordinary
intelligent buyer is not likely to be confused. For reference, the side-by-side
comparison used in the case is shown below:
63
See rollo, pp. 114-115; see also IPO-BLA Decision, supra note 49, at 10-11; rollo, p. 119; IPO-DG
Decision on Opposition to Trademark Application No. 4-1996-10631 O, supra note 39, at 1.
64
NB.: This "revival" was alleged by TKC in its Answer according to page 3 of the IPO-DG Decision on
Opposition to Trademark Application No. 4-1996-106310, id. at 121; id. at 3.
65
G.R. No. 154342, July 14, 2004, 434 SCRA 473.
66
Taiwan Kolin case, supra note 37, at 565-567.
67
Id. at 567.
68
Id. at 570.
69
Id. at 571.
KOLJ1V
Further, it stated that confusion is not likely because the products

involved (i.e., "various kinds of electronic products," according to the Taiwan
Kolin case) are more expensive than "ordinary consumable household items",
so consumers will be more careful in purchasing these products. 70 It also cited
the case of Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation v. Court of
Appeals71 (Emerald Garment) which defined an "ordinary intelligent buyer"
as follows:
The definition laid down in Dy Buncio v. Tan Tiao Bok is better

suited to the present case. There, the "ordinary purchaser" was defined as
one "accustomed to buy, and therefore to some extent familiar with, the
goods in question. The test of fraudulent simulation is to be found in the
likelihood of the deception of some persons in some measure acquainted
with an established design and desirous of purchasing the commodity with
which that design has been associated. The test is not found in the deception,
or the possibility of de~eption, of the person who knows nothing about the
design which has been counterfeited, and who must be indifferent between
that and the other. The simulation, in order to be objectionable, must be such
as appears likely to mislead the ordinary intelligent buyer who has a need
to supply and is familiar with the article that he seeks to purchase". 72 (Italics
omitted)
Thus, the Court's Third Division concluded that KECI's trademark

registration not only covers unrelated goods but is also incapable of deceiving
the ordinary buyer in relation to TKC's application. 73 Accordingly, TKC's
petition was granted, the CA decision was reversed and set aside, and the IPO-
DG Decision, which gave due course to TKC's Trademark Application No.
4-1996-106310 for KOLi N, was reinstated.
Facts of the present case
On September 11, 2006 74 - more than a month after the promulgation

of the KECI owners hip ca~e - KPII, an affiliate of TKC, 75 filed Trademark
70
See id. at 574.
71
G.R. No. 100098, December 29, 1995, 251 SCRA 600.
72
Id. at 617.
73
Taiwan Kolin case, supra note 37, at 577.
74
Rollo, p. 31.
75
Id. at 273.
Application No. 4-2006-010021 for the kolin mark under Class 9 covering
"Televisions and DVD players".
On June 12, 2007, KECI filed an opposition against K.PII's Trademark

Application No. 4-2006-010021 based on, among others, the fact that it is the
registered owner o-£ the llDLIN mar1: and that the re~i,gtf!ltion of ICPII'Q
kolin mark will cause confusion among consumers. 76
In its defense, KPII claimed that its application for kolin cannot be
denied on the basis of the ruling in the KECI ownership case because it was
not a party to said case and the KECI owner.ship case is not res judicata to the
instant case. 77 Besides, KPII asserted that the KECI ownership case
specifically clarified that KECI's ownership over the mark is limited only in
connection with goods specified in KECI' s certificate of registration and those
related thereto. 78 KPII insisted that "Televisions and DVD players" are not
related to the goods covered by KECI's registered mark. 79
For ease of reference, the marks involved in the present dispute (subject
marks) and their related information are included in the table below:
Parties KECI KPII

Marks KOLIN 80
kol£n 81
Application No. 4-1993-087497 4-2006-010021
Status Registered Trademark Application
subject of opposition by
KECI
Classes Covered 9 9
Goods Covered Automatic Voltage ~ Televisions, DVD Players
Regulator, Converter,
Recharger, Stereo Booster,
AC-DC Regulated Power
Supply, Step-Down
Transformer, PA Amplified
AC-DC
IPO-BLA Decision
In a Decision82 on IPC No. 14-2007-00167 dated September 9, 2009,

the IPO-BLA sustained KECI's opposition. One of the reasons why KPII's
Trademark Application No. 4-2006-010021 for koL::n was rejected was the
fact that buyers would be confused as to the origin of the products being
76
Id. at 158; IPO-BLA Decision on Opposition to Trademark Application No. 4-2006-010021, p. 4, also
available at <http:/1121.5 8.254.45/ipcaselibrary/ipcasepdf/IPC 14-2007-00167.pdt>.
77
Id. at 161-162; id. at 7-8.
78
Id. 162; id. at 8.
79
Id.; id.
80
See <https://www3 .wipo.int/branddb/ph/en/showData.jsp?ID=PHTM.41993087497>.
81
See <https://www3.wipo.int/branddb/ph/en/showData.isp?ID=PHTM.42006010021>.
82
Rollo, pp. 155-170. Penned by BLA Director Estrellita Beltran-Abelardo. IPO-BLA Decision on
Opposition to Trademark Application No. 4-2006-010021, supra note 76.
offered by KECI and KPH. 83 Significantly, the IPO-BLA also noted that KECI
had received several customer e-mails complaining against or seeking
information about the products ofKPH. 84
Further, the IPO-BLA found that KPH is an instrumentality ofTKC, as

seen in the excerpt below:
An exhaustive scrutiny of the records of the case convince[ s] this

Bureau to concur with the position of [KECI] that indeed, [KPH] is an
instrumentality of [TKC]. [KECI] presented substantial evidence that
[KPH] is effectively under the management, supervision and control of
[TKC] manifested through the assignment of five (5) persons to the
financial and plant operations x x x; [TKC's] admission of its direct
participation in the management, supervision and control of [KPH];
[TKC's] majority ownership of stocks in [KPH] x x x; and the
maintenance of one website of both companies and the admission to the
same x x x. 85 (Emphasis supplied)
Accordingly, the IPO-BLA rejected KPII's application for kol n. The

dispositive portion of the IPO-BLA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered the Notice of Opposition filed

by [KECI], is as it is hereby SUSTAINED. Accordingly, Application Serial
No. 4-2006-010021 filed by respondent-applicant, [KPII] on 27 December
2002 for the mark [kolfn] under Class 09 for televisions and DVD players,
is as it is hereby, REJECTED.
Let the file wrapper of [kolinJ, subject matter of this case be

forwarded to the Bureau of Trademarks for appropriate action in accordance
with this decision.
SO ORDERED. 86
Aggrieved, KPH appealed the case to the IPO-DG.
IPO-DG Decision
On September 12, 2013, the IPO-DG issued a Decision87 on Appeal No.

14-09-64 in IPC No. 14-2007-00167 dismissing KPH's appeal. It is important
to stress that, at this juncture, the Taiwan Kolin case had not yet been
promulgated. At that time, the case was still pending with the Court. The CA
decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 122565) that was promulgated on April 30, 2013
83
Id. at 167; id. at 13.
84
See id. at 167-168; id. at 13-14.
85
Id. at 169; id. at 15.
86
Id. at 170; id. at 16.
87
Id. at 172-178. Penned by Director General Ricardo R. Blancaflor. IPO-DG Decision on Opposition to
Trademark Application No. 4-2006-010021, also available at
<http ://121. 5 8 .254 .45 /ipcaselibrary/ipcasepdf/AP IPC 14-09-64. pdf>.
and where the CA ruled in favor of KECI, was the prevailing judgment
between KECI and TKC.
The IPO-DG stated that "with the decision of the [CA in CA-G.R. SP
No. 122565] that [TKC's] television sets and DVD players are related to
[KECI's] goods covered by the latter's certificate of registration for KOLIN,
this Office rules in favor of [KECI]." 88
Accordingly, the IPO-DG dismissed KPII's appeal. KPII then filed an

appeal to the CA, docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP No. 131917.
CA Decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 131917)
After the promulgation of the Taiwan Kolin case on March 25, 2015,
the CA issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 131917 a Decision89 dated April 29, 2016
granting KPII's appeal.
Faced with the issue of whether KPII is entitled to the registration of

the kolln mark covering television and DVD players, the CA relied heavily
on, and quoted the reasoning in, the Taiwan Kolin case. 90 Accordingly, the
CA ruled that KPII may register its mark for television sets and DVD players
and the doctrine of res judicata forbids it from arriving at a contrary
conclusion. 91 The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby

GRANTED. The Decision dated September 12, 2013, issued by the [IPO-
DG], in Appeal Case No. 14-09-64 (IPC No. 14-2007-00167), is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one is entered giving due course
to [KPII's] Trademark Application No. 04-2006-010021.
Let a copy of this Decision as well as the trademark application and

records be furnished and returned to the Director of the [IPO-BLA] for
appropriate action. Further, let the Director of the Bureau of Trademarks
and the library of the Documentation, Information, and Technology
Transfer Bureau be furnished a copy of this Decision for information,
guidance, and records purposes.
SO ORDERED. 92
Thus, KECI filed the instant Rule 45 Petition, raising the following
arguments: (I) the ruling in the Taiwan Kolin case is not applicable in the
present case; and (2) the registration of KPII's kol ·n mark is contrary to the
provisions of the IP Code.
88
Id. at 178; id. at 7.
89
Id. at 30-47.
90
Id. at 35-44.
91
Id. at 44.
92
Id. at 46.
In a Comment93 dated June 5, 2017, KPII argued that the CA had

correctly applied the principle of res judicata.
In the Reply94 dated November 16, 2017, KECI insisted that the ruling
in the Taiwan Kolin c_ase .cannot be made to apply in this case. Further, in
arguing that the CA decision should be reversed, KECI emphasized the
confusing similarity between the subject marks.
Issue
The main issue in this case is whether KPII should be allowed to

register its kol n mark.
The Court's Ruling
The Petition is granted. KPII is not allowed to register its kolin mark
for "Televisions and DVD players."
I.
RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY
Citing the Taiwan Kolin case, the CA stated that the doctrine of res
judicata is applicable and "forbids [it] from arriving at a contrary
conclusion." 95 It stated that all the requisites of res judicata are fulfilled in the
instant case, viz. :
All of these requisites [of res Judie ata] are fulfilled in the instant
case. While KPII may not be involved in the [Taiwan Kolin case], it must
be noted that KPII is an affiliate company of [TKC], as admitted by KECI.
An absolute identity of the parties is not required for res judicata to apply,
for as long as there exists an identity or community of interest.
It may be claimed that [TKC] is now the owner of the mark KOLIN
for television and DVD players by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in
the [Taiwan Kolin case], thereby preventing registration in the name of
KPII. Still, we again emphasize that they are affiliated companies and
[TKC] has authorized KPII to adopt and use the mark "KOLIN" in the
Philippines and to register the mark in connection with its business dealings.
More importantly, nowever, it appears that the marks applied for by [TKC]
and KPII are not identical. x x x Thus, since there is no identity of marks so
as to prevent registration, KPII may validly register its mark. 96
93
Id.at271-278.
94
Id.at281-290.
95
Id. at 44.
96
Id. at 45-46.
A. Res iudicata in the concept of bar by prior iudgment
The Court disagrees with the conclusion of the CA because all the
elements of res judicata are not present.
The following excerpts in Monterona v. Coca-Cola Bottlers

Philippines, Inc. 97 are instructive:
There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between

the first case where the judgment was rendered and the
second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of
parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance,
the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to
the second action. Otherwise put, the judgment or decree of
the court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes
the litigation between the parties, as well as their privies, and
constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same
cause of action before the same or any other tribunal.
xxxx
The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the
new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a
court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the
disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must
be as between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter,
and causes of action. x x x Should identity of parties, subject matter, and
causes of action be shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as
a "bar by prior judgment" would apply. x x x98
Based on the facts, the subject matter in this case and the Taiwan Kolin
case are different. A subject matter is th~ item with respect to which the
controversy has arisen, or concerning which the wrong has been done, and it
is ordinarily the right, the thing, or the contract under dispute. 99 In this case,
the item to which the controversy has arisen or the thing under dispute is
KPII's kohn mark, while in the Taiwan Kolin case, the subject matter is
TKC's KOLIN mark.
The cause of action in the Taiwan Kolin case is also different from the
cause of action in the case at bar. Rule 2, Section 2 of the Rules of Court
defines a cause of action as an act or omission by which a party violates the
right of another. In the Taiwan Kolin case, the cause of action was TKC's act
of filing Trademark Application No. 4-1996-106310 for KOLIN, which
allegedly violated KECI' s rights because confusion would be likely among
consumers if TKC's trademark application were to be given due course. In
contrast, in the case at bar, the cause of action is KPII's act of filing Trademark
Application No. 4-2006-010021 for kol n.
97
G.R. No. 209116, January 14, 2019, 890 SCRA 278.
98
Id. at 286-287.
99
Id. at 288.
Thus, there is no bar by prior judgment in this case.
B. Res fudicata in the concept of conclusiveness o(judgment
Neither can res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment

operate to prevent the Court from determining the registrability of KPII's
trademark application.
Jurisprudence describes how this principle is applied below:
Section 49(c) of Rule 39 enumerates the concept of conclusiveness

of judgment. This is the second branch, otherwise known as collateral
estoppel or estoppel by' verdict. This applies where, between the first case
wherein judgment is rendered and the second case wherein
such judgment is involved, there is no identity of causes of action. As
explained by this Court:
It has been held that in order that a judgment in one

action can be conclusive as to a particular matter in another
action between the same parties or their privies, it is essential
that the issues be identical. If a particular point or question
is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend
on the determination of that particular point or question, a
former judgment between the same parties will be final and
conclusive in the second if that same point or question was
in issue and adjudicated in the first suit; but the adjudication
of an issue in the first case is not conclusive of an entirely
different and distinct issue arising in the second. In order that
this rule may be applied, it must clearly and positively
appear, either from the record itself or by the aid of
competent extrinsic evidence that the precise point or
question in.issue in the second suit was involved and decided
in the first. And in determining whether a given question was
an issue in the prior action, it is proper to look behind
the judgment to ascertain whether the evidence necessary to
sustain a judgment in the second action would have
authorized a judgment for the same party in the first
action. 100
To emphasize, in the Taiwan Kolin case, the Court only ruled that
TKC's Trademark Application No. 4-1996-106310 for KOLIN should be
given due course.
What is involved in this case now before the Court is a new trademark
application by KPII which means that it is going through an entirely new
process of determining registrability. There is nothing under the law which
mandates that registered trademark owners and/or their privies may
100
Perez v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 157616, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 89, 108-109.
automatically register all similar marks, despite allegations of"damage" 101 by

opposers.
Since new trademark applications are attempts to claim new exclusive

rights, there will necessarily be new nuances of "damage", even if the same
parties are involved, and the Court should carefully consider these nuances in
deciding to give due course to the application. There are new issues on
"damage" to KECI here, not decided in the Taiwan Kolin case, which affect
the registrability of KPII's application for kol n and which must be
resolved by the Court.
The registration of KPII's kolin will create new rights which would
change the status quo. Thus, the opposed trademark application before the
Court presents the following new issues:
a) KPII's new application for kolin essentially amounts to seeking

exclusivity 102 over a stylized version of the "KOLIN" word as against
other parties, including KECI, for a range of goods/services. 103 This
issue was not considered in the Taiwan Kolin case because the Court
only essentially ruled therein that the registration of KOLIN will
not cause damage to KECI. Thus, the relevant questions are these:
should KPH be given a new right to assert exclusivity over the
ko I n stylized mark, as against KECI, for a range of
goods/services? Will KPil's exclusive appropriation of a specific
stylized version (koEn) cause "damage" to KECI who, as it stands,
has an existing right to use any and all stylized versions of
"KOLIN" for a range of goods/services (i.e., goods covered by its
registration, related goods/services, and goods/services falling
within the normal expansion of its business)?
101
See IP CODE, SECTION 134. Opposition. -Any person who believes that he would be damaged by the
registration of a mark may, upon payment of the required fee and within thirty (30) days after the
publication referred to in Subsection 133.2, file with the Office an opposition to the application. Such
opposition shall be in writing and verified by the oppositor or by any person on his behalf who knows
the facts, and shall specify the grounds on which it is based and include a statement of the facts relied
upon. Copies of certificates of registration of marks registered in other countries or other supporting
documents mentioned in the opposition shall be filed therewith, together with the translation in English,
if not in the English language. For good cause shown a11d up9n payment of the required surcharge, the
time for filing an opposition may be extended by the Director of Legal Affairs, who shall notify the
applicant of such extension. The Regulations shall fix the maximum period of time within which to file
the opposition. (Sec. 8, R.A. No. 165a) (Underscoring supplied)
102
Id., SECTION 147. Rights Conferred. - 147.1. The owner of a registered mark shall have the exclusive
right to prevent all third parties not having the owner's consent from using in the course of trade identical
or similar signs or containers for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of
which the trademark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. In case of
the use of an identical sign for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be presumed.
103
See Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Dy, Jr., G.R. No. 172276, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 223,242:
"The scope of protection afforded to registered trademark owners is not limited to protection from
infringers with identical goods. The scope of protection extends to protection from infringers with
related goods, and to market areas that are the normal expansion of business of the registered
trademark owners." (Emphasis supplied)
b) As mentioned, KECI is the owner of the mark under the Trademark

Law based on the KECI ownership case. Section 236 104 of the IP
Code mandates that nothing in the IP Code - which logically
includes marks registered under the IP Code - can adversely affect
the rights on enforcement of marks acquired in good faith prior to
the effective date of the law. In this regard, does KPil's application
under the IP Code for exclusive appropriation of a stylized
KOLIN (kol ·n) for a range of goods/services adversely affect
KECl's rights under Section 236 of the IP Code in such a way
that it amounts to "damage" to KECI? Will KPII's registration
adversely affect the rights on KECl's enforcement of its KOLIN
mark established under the KECI ownership case?
The Court is therefore called upon to resolve the question of whether KPII
deserves to exclusively appropriate a stylized version of the KOLIN word mark
for a range of goods/services, considering all aspects of "damage" to KECI.
Because this involves a new trademark application and there are new
issues arising here which were not decided in the Taiwan Kolin case, the
principle of res judicatg in ,the concept of conclusiveness of judgment does not
apply.
Senior Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe also raises a

compelling and well-reasoned point on why the principle of conclusiveness
of judgment does not apply here. As expertly detailed in her Concurring
Opinion, the Court's Third Division in the Taiwan Kolin case could have only
allowed the registration of TKC's KOLIN as a mark with a specific
stylization, and not a word mark. 105
Indeed, a perusal of the marks involved in the Taiwan Kolin case would
confirm that TKC sought to protect a specific style of lettering in its
trademark application, thereby precluding the possibility that the registration
granted in the Taiwan Kolin case belongs in the category of word marks: 106
104
IP CODE, SECTION 236. Preservation of Existing Rights. - Nothing herein shall adversely affect the
rights on the enforcement of rights in patents, utility models, industrial designs, marks and works,
acquired in good faith prior to the effective date of this Act. (n)
105
Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, pp. 6-11.
106
See IPOPHL Memorandum Circular No. 17-010, RULES AND REGULATIONS ON TRADEMARKS, SERVICE
MARKS, TRADE NAMES AND MARKED OR STAMPED CONTAINERS, Rule 402 which reads:
RULE 402. Reproduction of the Mark. - xx x
In the case of word marks or if no special characteristics have to be shown, such as
design, style of lettering, color, diacritical marks, or unusual forms of punctuation, the
mark must be represented in standard characters. The specification of the mark to be
reproduced will be indicated in the application form and/or published on the website.
xx x x (Emphasis supplied)
TKC's opposed Trademark Application No. TKC's Trademark Application No. 4-

4-1996-106310, which was granted 2002-011002, the alleged "revived
re istration in the Taiwan Kolin case version" in the Taiwan Kolin case
KOLIN 101 108
Thus, even if the CA had found that "[TKC] had authorized KPII to
adopt and use [its] mark "KOLIN" in the Philippines and to register the mark
in connection with its business dealings," 109 the only consequence of TKC's
authorization is that KPII was given the right to use the exact mark allowed to
be registered in the Taiwan Kolin case, not a blanket authority to use - or
register, for that matter - any and all figurative or stylized versions of the
word "KOLIN". The Court adopts Senior Associate Justice Perlas-Bernabe' s
insightful disquisition on this point, viz.:
xx x [I]t should be discerned that the CA' s application of res judicata

in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment failed to take into account the
nature of TKC's KOLIN mark as a mere design mark, which attribution
should consequently limit the legal effects of the [Taiwan Kolin case's] final
judgment. x x x TKC - having been adjudged as the owner of a mere design
mark - could have only assigned to KPII the right to adopt and use its mark
under the specific stylization and design of KOLIN.xx x 110
Consequently, the principle of conclusiveness of judgment cannot

apply here because the issue involving KPII's use of another figurative or
stylized version of "KOLIN" ("kO I ·n") - or the use of any other figurative
or stylized versions of the word "KOLIN" - was not ruled upon in the
Taiwan Kolin case.
In light of the foregoing, the Court inust therefore determine whether

KPII deserves to register its trademark application for ko I n, a stylized
version of the word "KOLIN", despite KECI's opposition.
II.
KPil'S TRADEMARK APPLICATION IS NOT

REGISTRABLE BECAUSE IT WILL CAUSE DAMAGE
TOKECI
In its Petition, 111 KECI squarely raises the issue of likelihood of

confusion, arguing that KPH' s trademark should not be registered based on,
among others, Section 123.l(d) of the IP Code, which reads:
107
Supra note 61.
108
Supra note 62.
109
Rollo, p. 46.
110
Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, p. 6.
111
Rollo, p. 20.
SECTION 123. Registrability. - 123.1. A mark cannot be

registered if it:
xxxx
(d) Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different

proprietor or a mark with an earlier filing or priority date, in
respect of:
(i) The same goods or services, or
(ii) Closely related goods or services, or
(iii) If ii nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive

or cause confusion;
xxxx
In determining likelihood of confusion - which can manifest in the

form of "confusion of goods" and/or "confusion of business" 112 - several
factors may be taken into account, such as:
a) the strength of plaintiffs mark;
b) the degree of similarity between the plaintiffs and the defendant's

marks;
c) the proximity of the products or services;
d) the likelihood that the plaintiff will bridge the gap;
e) evidence of actual confusion;
f) the defendant's good faith in adopting the mark;
g) the quality of defendant's product or service; and/or
h) the sophistication of the buyers. 113
These criteria may be collectively referred to as the multifactor test.

Out of these criteria, there are two which are uniformly deemed significant
112
Mighty Corp. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, supra note 65, at 504. The relevant excerpt reads:
x x x The first is "confusion of goods" when an otherwise prudent purchaser is
induced to purchase one product in the belief that he is purchasing another, in which case
defendant's goods are then bought as the plaintiffs and its poor quality reflects badly on
the plaintiffs reputation. The other is "confusion of business" wherein the goods of the
parties are different but the defendant's product can reasonably (though mistakenly) be
assumed to originate from the plaintiff, thus deceiving the public into believing that there
is some connection bNweeh the plaintiff and defendant which, in fact, does not exist.
(Emphasis supplied)
113
See A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC, RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS CASES
(October 18, 2011), Rule 18, Sec. 4 and A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC, 2020 REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE
FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS CASES (October 6, 2020), Rule 18, Sec. 5.
under the Trademark Law 114 and the IP Code: 115 the resemblance of marks
(the degree of similarity between the plaintiff's and the defendant's marks)
and the relatedness of goods or services (the proximity of products or
services). Nevertheless, the other factors also contribute to the finding of
likelihood of confusion, as will be discussed.
A. Resemblance of marks
The marks involved in this dispute are KECI's KOLIN and KPII's
kol n. In assessing the resemblance of marks to determine the existence of
likelihood of confusion, there are two tests prescribed by jurisprudence, viz.:
Jurisprudence has developed two tests in determining similarity and

likelihood of confusion in trademark resemblance:
114 TRADEMARK LAW, as amended, SECTION 4. Registration of trade-marks, trade-names and service-
marks on the principal register. - There is hereby established a register oftrade-mark[s], trade-names
and service-marks which shall be known as the principal register. The owner of a trade-mark, a trade-
name or service-mark used to distinguish his goods, business or services from the goods, business or
services of others shall have the right to register the same on the principal register, unless it:
xxxx
(d) Consists of or comprises a mark or trade-name which so resembles a mark or trade-
name registered in the Philippines or a mark or trade-name previously used in the Philippines by
another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when applied to or used in connection with the goods,
business or services of the applicant, to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers xx x[.]
xxxx
SECTION 22. Infringement, What Constitute's. - ~Any person who shall use, without the
consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of any registered
mark or trade-name in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business
or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive
purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services, or identity of such business; or
reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate any such mark or trade-name and apply such
reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers,
receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods, business or
services, shall be liable to a civil action by the registrant for any or all of the remedies herein provided.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
115
IP CODE, SECTION 123. Registrability. - 123.1. A mark cannot be registered if it:
xxxx
(d) Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a mark with an earlier
filing or priority date, in respect of:
(i) The same goods or services, or
(ii) Closely related goods or services, or
(iii) Ifit nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion[.]
xxxx
SECTION 155. Remedies; Infringement. -Any person who shall, without the consent of the
owner of the registered mark:
155.1. Use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a
registered mark or the same container or a dominant feature thereof in connection with the sale,
offering for sale, distribution, advertising of any goods or services including other preparatory steps
necessary to carry out the sale of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is
likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
155.2. Reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark or a dominant
feature thereof and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels,
signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon
or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on
or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,
shall be liable in a civil action for infringement by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter set forth:
Provided, That the infringement takes place at the moment any of the acts stated in Subsection 155.1 or
this subsection are committed regardless of whether there is actual sale of goods or services using the
infringing material. (Sec. 22, R.A. No. 166a) (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
(a) the Dominancy Test applied in Asia Brewery,

Inc. vs. Court ofAppeals and other cases, and
~ )I
(b) the Holistic or Totality Test used in Del Monte

Corporation vs. Court ofAppeals and its preceding cases.
The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent

features of the competing trademarks which might cause confusion or
deception, and thus infringement. If the competing trademark contains the
main, essential or dominant features of another, and confusion or deception
is likely to result, infringement takes place. Duplication or imitation is not
necessary; nor is it necessary that the infringing label should suggest an
effort to imitate. The question is whether the use of the marks involved is
likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or deceive
purchasers.
On the other hand, the Holistic Test requires that the entirety of the
marks in question be considered in resolving confusing similarity.
Comparison of words is not the only determining factor. The trademarks in
their entirety as they appear in their respective labels or hang tags must also
be considered in relation to the goods to which they are attached. The
discerning eye ofJhe pbserver must focus not only on the predominant
words but also on the other features appearing in both labels in order that
he may draw his conclusion whether one is confusingly similar to the
other. 116 (Emphasis supplied)
Unfortunately, jurisprudence has not been consistent in saying what test

should be used under what circumstances such that either or both tests may
viably be employed by the IPO or the courts in finding resemblance between
marks. As expertly outlined by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen,
there are contradictory lines of jurisprudence advocating the use of the
Dominancy Test alone, 117 the Holistic Test alone, 118 or both tests. 119 There is
also at least one case where the Court did not use either test. 120
Needless to say, the current state of jurisprudence in deciding the

resemblance of marks is unclear. Out of the two tests, however, only the
Dominancy Test has been incorporated in the IP Code. This was discussed in
McDonald's Corporation v. L. C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., 121 where the Court also
observed its own reliance on the dominancy test, thus:
This Court, however, has relied on the dominancy test rather

than the holistic test. The dominancy test considers the dominant features
in the competing marks in determining whether they are confusingly
similar. Under the dominancy test, courts give greater weight to the
similarity of the appearance of the product arising from the adoption
of the dominant features of the registered mark, disregarding minor
116
Mighty Corporation v. E. & J Gallo Winery, supra note 65, at 506-507.
117
Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, pp. 16-19.
118
ld.atl9-20.
119
Id. at 20-21.
120
"Irrespective of both tests, the Court finds no confusing similarity between the subject marks." (Great
White Shark Enterprises, Inc. v. Cara/de, Jr., G.R. No. 192294, November 21, 2012, 686 SCRA 201,
208.)
121
G.R. No. 143993, August 18, 2004, 437 SCRA 10.
differences. Courts will consider more the aural and visual impressions
created by the marks in the public mind, giving little weight to factors
like prices, quality, sales outlets and market segments.
xxxx
The test of dominancy is now explicitly incorporated into law in

Section 155.1 of the Intellectual Property Code which defines
infringement as the "colorable imitation of a registered mark x x x or
a dominant feature thereof." 122 (Emphasis supplied; italics omitted)
More than an indicator of a mere preference for the Dominancy Test, it

appears that the legislative intent in explicitly adopting the Dominancy Test
was to abandon the Holistic Test altogether, as can be seen in the legislative
deliberations:
Trademarks
Part III of the Code is the new law on trademarks.
xxxx
To resolve the conflicting doctrines regarding what constitutes

colorable imitation of a registered mark, the Code adopts the
Dominancy Test so that any person who uses in commerce any colorable
imitation of [a] registered mark or a dominant feature thereof shall be liable
for damages for infringement.
xxxx
Policy Issues
We have summarized the basic features of the proposed Intellectual

Property Code. Let me now try to identify provisions of the Code that may
be the focus of policy debates.
Without being exclusive, they are the following:
xxxx
Trademarks
xxxx
8. The committee notes the varying decisions of the Supreme Court

regarding colorable imitation of a registered mark. There are decisions
which espouse the Dominancy Test, while there are others which use
the Holistic Test. We, therefore, recommend the adoption of the
Dominancy Test to resolve once and for all the debate. 123 (Emphasis
supplied)
Considering the adoption of the Dominancy Test and the abandonment

of the Holistic Test, as confirmed by the provisions of the IP Code and the
122
Id. at 32-33.
123
Record of the Senate, October 8, 1996, Vol. II, No. 29, pp. 131-135.
legislative deliberations, the Court hereby makes it crystal clear that the
use of the Holistic Test in determining the resemblance of marks has been
abandoned.
The inapplicability of the Taiwan Kolin case in the case at bar is thus
evident. As correctly pointed out by Associate Justice Leonen, 124 the Taiwan
Kolin case used the Holistic Test in evaluating trademark resemblance. This
is improper precedent because the Dominancy Test is what is prescribed under
the law.
Using the Dominancy Test, the Court should now determine the
resemblance between /(OLIN. and kolin in terms of the similarity of the
dominant features used. This is consistent with the basic rule in determining
resemblance of marks, which requires that the appearance, sound, meaning,
and overall impressions generated by the marks shall be considered. 125
In Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Dy, Jr., 126 the Court stated that
the marks are confusingly similar based on the Dominancy Test because the
mark "NANNY" "contains the prevalent feature 'NAN"' and because the
marks are aurally similar, thus:
Applying the dominancy test in the present case, the Court finds that
"NANNY" is confusingly similar to "NAN." "NAN" is the prevalent
feature of Nestle's line of infant powdered milk products. It is written in
bold letters and used in all products. The line consists of PRE-NAN, NAN-
H.A., NAN-I, and NAN-2. Clearly, "NANNY" contains the prevalent
feature "NAN." The 'first three letters of "NANNY" are exactly the
same as the letters of "NAN." When "NAN" and "NANNY" are
pronounced, the aural effect is confusingly similar. 127 (Emphasis
supplied)
Applying the Dominancy Test here, KPII's koh:n mark resembles

KECI's /(OLIN mark because the word "KOLIN" is the prevalent feature of
both marks. Phonetically or aurally, the marks are exactly the same. Surely,
the manner of pronouncing the word "KOLIN" does not change just because
KPII' s mark is in lowercase and contains an italicized orange letter "i". In
terms of connotation and overall impression, there seems to be no difference
between the two marks.
Another consideration is the type of marks used. Logically, this may

affect the determination of resemblance of the marks in terms of their visual,
124
Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, p. 22.
125
See Societe Des Produits Nestle, SA. v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 112012, April 4, 2001, 356 SCRA
207, 221, which states that: "the dominancy test relies not only on the visual but also on the aural and
connotative comparisons and overall impressions between the two trademarks."
126
Supra note 103.
127
Id. at 627.
aural, or connotative aspects, which are key areas to consider in using the
Dominancy Test.
As summarized in the IPO website, 128 the types of marks allowed to be

registered in the Philippines are the following: "word mark," "figurative
mark," "figurative mark with words," "3D mark," and "stamped or marked
containers of goods." Notably, the IP Code and the current Trademark
Regulations do not define these terms anq how they impact the finding of
resemblance between marks. However, IPOPHL Memorandum Circular No.
17-010, Rules and Regulations on Trademarks, Service Marks, Trade names
and Marked or Stamped Containers makes an explicit reference to "word
marks," as follows:
RULE 402. Reproduction of the Mark. - xx x
In the case of word marks or if no special characteristics have to be shown,

such as design, style of lettering, color, diacritical marks, or unusual forms
of punctuation, the mark must be represented in standard characters. The
specification of the mark to be reproduced will be indicated in the
application form and/or published on the website.
xxxx
That word marks protect the word itself stands to reason. Since there
are no special characteristics to be shown in the reproduction of the mark in
the application, the word itself is th~ subject of protection. This
understanding of the protection given to word marks is also consistent with
trademark jurisprudence in the United States, where most of our intellectual
property laws were patterned from. 129
The case of Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp. 130 (Cunningham) may be

considered relevant in this jurisdiction. In Cunningham, Laser Golf, the prior
user and registrant of the "LASER" mark for golf clubs and golf balls, filed a
cancellation case against Cunningham's registration for "LASERSWING" for
golf clubs. Since Cunningham's "LASERSWING" registration was
cancelled, he sought before the court a review of the decision cancelling his
registration. One of Cunningham's arguments was that the appearance of his
mark in commerce is distinguishable from the mark of Laser Golf in the sense
that he uses "particular colors and a particular font", "specific arrangements
of lower and upper case", "colored whoosh stripes", and a "juxtaposition of
the main brand name". In ruling that this was not enough to avoid confusion,
the U.S. court pertinently stated:
However, Cunningham's argument is inapposite to our review of

this cancellation proceeding. The record shows that the registration for the
128
See <https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/help-and-support/trademark/> under the tab "What types of marks
may be registered as a trademark in the Philippines?".
129
See W Land Holdings, Inc. v. Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc., G.R. No. 222366, December
4, 2017, 847 SCRA 403, 432.
130
222 F. 3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
LASERSWING inark contains a "typed drawing." ... Registrations

with typed drawings are not limited to any particular rendition of the
mark and, in particular, are not limited to the mark as it is used in
commerce. See Vornado, Inc. v. Breuer Elec. Mfg. Co., 55 C.C.P.A.
858, 390 F.2d 724, 727, 156 USPQ 340, 342 (1968) (stating that because
the registration for the senior mark, upon which the opposition was based,
disclosed only the word, "the [advertising] display of the mark in a
particular style is of no material significance since the display may be
changed at any time as may be dictated by the fancy of the applicant or
the owner of the mark"); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. CJ Webb, Inc., 58
C.C.P.A. 1255, 442 F.2d 1376, 1378, 170 USPQ 35, 36 (1971) ("The
drawing in the [opposed] application shows the mark typed in capital
letters, and x x x this means that [the] application is not limited to the
mark depicted in any special form."); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. H
Douglas Enters., Ltd., 774 F.2d 1144, 1147, 227 USPQ 541, 543
(Fed.Cir.1985) (stating that trade dress associated with the mark of the
opposed registration was irrelevant in distinguishing the mark because
"such dress might well be changed at any time; only the word mark
itself is to be registered"). Therefore, it is irrelevant that Cunningham
has a particular display for his mark in commerce, and the Board was
correct to ignore those features. 131 (Emphasis and underscoring ours)
Using the persuasive logic in Cunningham together with the

Dominancy Test, there is no doubt that the minor differences between kol n
and /(OLIN mark should be completely disregarded. The fact that KPII's
trademark application possesses special characteristics (e.g., the italicized
orange letter "i") not present in KECI's KOLINword mark makes no
difference in terms of appearance, sound, connotation, or overall impression
because the "KOLIN" word itself is the subject ofKECI's registration.
B. Relatedness of Goods/Services
The goods involved in the case at bar are as follows:
KECI's [(OLIN KPII's kolin

Automatic Voltage Televisions, DVD Players
Regulator, Converter,
Recharger, Stereo Booster,
AC-DC Regulated Power
Supply, Step-Down
Transformer, PA Amplified
AC-DC.
In assessing relatedness of goods/services to determine likelihood of

confusion, Mighty Corporation provides a list of factors that should be
considered, viz. :
Non-competing goods may be those which, though they are not in

actual competition, are so related to each other that it can reasonably be
assumed that they originate from one manufacturer, in which case,
131
Id. at 949-950.
confusion of business can arise out of the use of similar marks. They may
also be those which, being entirely umelated, cannot be assumed to have a
common source; hence, there is no confusion of business, even though
similar marks are used. Thus, there is no trademark infringement if the
public does not expect the plaintiff to make or sell the same class of goods
as those made or sold by the defendant.
In resolving whether goods are related, several factors come into

play:
(a) the business (and its location) to which the goods belong
(b) the class of product to which the goods belong
(c) the product's quality, quantity, or size, including the nature of

the package, wrapper or container
(d) the nature and cost of the articles
(e) the descriptive properties, physical attributes or essential

characteristics with reference to. thei:i:- form, composition, texture
or quality
(f) the purpose of the goods
(g) whether the article is bought for immediate consumption, that is,
day-to-day household items
(h) the fields of manufacture
(i) the conditions under which the article is usually purchased and
(j) the channels of trade through which the goods flow, how they
are distributed, marketed, displayed and sold.
The wisdom of this approach is its recognition that each trademark

infringement case presents its own unique set of facts. No single factor is
preeminent, nor can the presence or absence of one determine, without
analysis of the others, the outcome of an infringement suit. Rather, the court
is required to sift the evidence relevant to each of the criteria. This requires
that the entire panoply of elements constituting the relevant factual
landscape be comprehensively examined. It is a weighing and balancing
process. With reference to this ultimate question, and from a balancing of
the determinations reached on all of the factors, a conclusion is reached
whether the parties have a right to the relief sought. 132 (Emphasis supplied)
Indeed, a comprehensive examination of all these factors is needed to

ensure that pronouncements on legal relatedness are not based on skewed
factual premises, especially since relatedness of goods/services significantly
impacts the finding of likelihood of confusion as mentioned above.
Too, because of the importance of relatedness of goods/services in

deciding controversies involving the issue of likelihood of confusion of
132
Mighty Corporation v. E. & J Gallo Winery, supra note 65, at 509-511.
marks, the Court en bane takes a closer look at one factor inconsistent with
our laws and creates problems with making precedents on legal relatedness.
As astutely explained by Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, 133 the NCL

serves purely administrative purposes - merely a way for trademark offices
worldwide to organize the thousands of applications that are filed - and the
classification of products/services should not have been included as one of the
factors in determining relatedness because there was no legal basis for its
inclusion. In fact, it even contradicts specific provisions of the Trademark
Law 134 and the IP Code. 135 The use of classification of products/services in
determining relatedness also conflicts with a provision of the 2020 Revised
Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases, 136 viz.:
SECTION 6. Likelihood of Confusion; Determination of Related

Goods or Services. - Goods or services may not be considered as being
similar or dissimilar to each other on the ground that, in any registration or
publication by the Office, they appear in the same or different classes of the
Nice Classification.
Allowing this factor to remain as a criterion in determining legal

relatedness would not be merely inconsequential. In fact, it may even create
problems in jurisprudential precedents on legal relatedness due to the
principle of stare decisis.
The Classes in the NCL undergo several changes each year. To

illustrate, the Alphabetical List of Goods in Class 9 underwent several
changes in 201 7, 137 2018, 138 2019, 139 and 2020. 140 Significantly, "socks,
electrically heated" was changed from being a Class 9 product to a Class 11
product in 2017, showing that the classification of the specific goods per class
is still subject to change. Surely, jurisprudential pronouncements regarding
the nature of certain goods/services and their legal relatedness/non-
relatedness to each other-which pronouncements would, in tum, effectively
affect substantive rights over marks and affect future cases involving the same
goods or services - should not be made to depend on a constantly changing
list.
133
Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, pp. 3-7.
134
See TRADEMARK LAW, Sec. 6.
135
See IP CODE, Sec. 144.
136
Supra note 113.
137
See <https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr/?c lass number=9&Iang'=en&menulang
=en&mode=flat&notion=modifications&version=20170101>. NB.: The list of modifications shows 42
changes, transfers, and adq.itions. in the Alphabetical List of Goods.
138
See <https ://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr/? class num ber=9&lang=en&men ulang
=en&mode=flat&notion=modifications&version=2018010 l>. NB.: The list of modifications shows 39
changes and additions in the Alphabetical List of Goods.
139
See <https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr/?class number=9&lang=en&menulang
=en&mode=flat&notion=modifications&version=2019010 l>. NB.: The list of modifications shows
that the class headings and explanatory notes were changed. The list of modifications also indicates 33
changes and additions in the Alphabetical List of Goods.
140
See <https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr/?class number=9&lang=en&men ulang
=en&mode=flat&notion=modifications&version=2020010 l>. NB.: The list of modifications shows 15
changes/ additions in the Alphabetical List of Goods.
Considering the foregoing discussion, the Court hereby abandons the

use of product or service classification as a factor in determining
relatedness or non-relatedness.
In this light, the inapplicability of the Taiwan Kolin case as precedent

in the instant controversy becomes all the more apparent because it did not
comprehensively consider all the jurisprudential factors in determining
relatedness and it included an inapposite discussion on subcategories in the
NCL as an additional rationale for its conclusion on non-relatedness.
Based on the evidence on record and reasonable inferences in accord

with common experience, the factors to determine relatedness in Mighty
Corporation yields the conclusion that the goods covered by ](OLIN and
ko I n are related, as seen in the following table:
(d) the nature and cost of the Goods covered by 1(0LIN and
articles ko Iin are electronic m nature,
relatively expensive, and rarely
bought. It will likely take several
years before consumers would make
repeat purchases of the goods
involved.
(e) the descriptive properties, Considering that they are electronic
physical attributes or essential goods, goods covered by [(OLIN
characteristics with reference to and ko I n are likely made of metal.
their form, composition, texture It is also likely that such goods
or quality cannot be easily carried around and
are usually brought back to the
consumer's place after being bought.
(f) the purpose of the goods The audiovisual goods covered by
kolrn (Television and DVD
players) and !(OLIN (stereo
booster) marks can be used for
entertainment purposes.
(g) whether the article is bought Goods covered by KOLIN and
for immediate consumption, that kolin are not bought for immediate
is, day-to-day household items consumption.
(i) the conditions under which the Because they are relatively
article is usually purchased, and expensive and they last for a long
time, goods covered by KOLIN and
kol n are rarely bought. They are
non-essential goods.
(j) the channels of trade through The goods covered by !(OLIN and
which the goods flow, how they kol n marks will likely be offered in
are distributed, marketed, "the same channels of trade such as
displayed and sold.
department stores or appliance

stores". 141
Clearly, the goods covered by KOLIN and kohn are related, and this
legal relatedness significantly impacts a finding of likelihood of confusion.
In addition to the factors in Mighty Corporation, another ground for

finding relatedness of goods/services is their complementarity.
The reasoning used in the case of Hewlett-Packard Development

Company, L.P. v. Vudu, Inc. 142 is also logical and persuasive. In said case, the
opposer Hewlett-Packard registered its "VOODOO" mark for, inter alia,
"personal and gaming computers" under Class 9. Meanwhile, Vudu, Inc.
sought to register its "VUDU" mark for, inter alia, "computer software for
use in computers for Jhe ,transmission, storage and playback of audio and
video content" also under Class 9. The tribunal therein pointed out that "the
goods of the parties may be used together for the same purposes, may be found
in the same channels of trade, and may appeal to the same purchasers. x x x
[B]y their descriptions, [VUDU's] particular type of software for computers
and [Hewlett-Packard's] personal and gaming computers are complementary
goods", thus, it granted Hewlett-Packard's opposition of the "VUDU" mark
based on the finding that the goods under Class 9 covered by the marks are
related and confusion is likely. 143
Applying this reasoning to the herein dispute, it is clear that the goods
covered by KECI's KOLIN are complementary to the goods covered by
KPII's kolt:n and could thus be considered as related. This increases the
likelihood that consumers will at least think that the goods come from the
same source. In other words, confusion of business will likely arise.
C. Actual Confusion
The IPO-BLA stated that there is already actual confusion among

consumers regarding the goods of KECI and KPII:
More so, [KECI's] evidence consisting of various e-mails xx x it

received from public consumers reflecting their complaints, concerns, and
other information about [KPII' s] goods as televisions, air-conditioning units
and DVD players, are obvious showing of actual confusion of goods as well
as confusion as to origin or source [of] goods. These reveal factual
confusion of the buying public between the marks in controversy. 144
141
Rollo, p. 167.
142
Opposition No. 91185393, October 26, 2009, available at <https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-
91185393-OPP-15.pdf>.
143 Id.
144
Rollo, pp. 167-168.
The presence of actual confusion is not an insignificant circumstance.

Indeed, the evidence of actual confusiop i~ often considered the most
persuasive evidence of likelihood of confusion because past confusion is
frequently a strong indicator of future confusion. 145
It is the Court's considered view that evidence of actual confusion

should be considered as strong evidence oflikelihood of confusion, especially
when there are concurrent findings of resemblance of marks and/or
relatedness of the goods/services. If "likelihood of confusion" is already
abhorred by the infringement provisions 146 of the law and the evidence of
likelihood of confusion already creates basis to prevent another's use of its
mark, it should logically follow that actual confusion should be given more
weight because confusion among consumers is not only speculated but
has actually transpired.
Parenthetically, the presence of this criterion in ascertaining the

existence of likelihood of confusion in the multifactor test is yet another
reason why the Taiwan Kolin case should not be held as a binding precedent
here. In the Taiwan Kolin case, while there was evidence of actual confusion
presented in the IPO-BLA, 147 this was ultimately not considered in resolving
the issue of likelihood of confusion.
D. Normal Potential Expansion of Business
The factor involving the "likelihood that the plaintiff will bridge the
gap" pertains to the possibility that the plaintiff will expand its product
offerings to cover the product areas of the defendant. 148
In the case of Dermaline, Inc. v. Myra Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 149 the

Court already acknowledged "that the registered trademark owner enjoys
protection in product and market areas that are the normal potential
expansion of his business." 150 As well, Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v.
Dy, Jr. 151 describes the scope of protection given to registrants as follows:
The scope of protection afforded to registered trademark owners is

not limited to protection from infringers with identical goods. The scope of
145
Beacon Mut. Ins. Co. v. Onebeacon Ins. Group, 376 F.3d 8, 18 (2004).
146
See TRADEMARK.LAW, as amended, Sec. 22 and IP CODE, Sec. 155.
147
Supra note 37, at 562. Excerpt from the Taiwan Kolin case: "The BLA-IPO also noted that there was
proof of actual confusion in the form of consumers writing numerous e-mails to respondent asking
for information, service, and complaints about petitioner's products." (Emphasis supplied)
148
See Christensen, Glenn L.; DeRosia, Eric D.; and Lee, Thomas R., Sophistication, Bridging the Gap, and
the Likelihood of Confusion: An Empirical and Theoretical Analysis, (2008). All Faculty Publications,
available at <https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= l 914&context=facpub>.
149
G.R. No. 190065, August 16, 2010, 628 SCRA 356. Second Division case penned by Associate Justice
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura and concurred in by Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Diosdado M.
Peralta, Roberto A. Abad and Jose C. Mendoza.
150
Id. at 367. Emphasis supplied.
151
Supra note 103.
protection extends to protection from infringers with related goods, and to

market areas that are the normal expansion of business of the registered
trademark owners.xx x 152 (Emphasis supplied)
As stated above, the goods covered by KOLIN and kolin are related.
Therefore, it is likely that the goods covered by kolin falls within the normal
potential expansion ofbusiness of KECI.
E. Sophistication of the buyers
As stated in Philip Morris, Inc. v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation, 153

"the general impression of the ordinary purchaser, buying under the
normally prevalent conditions in trade and giving the attention such
purchasers usually give in buying that class of goods, is the touchstone." 154
The goods covered by /(OLIN and kolin are not inexpensive goods
and consumers may pay more attention in buying these goods. However, this
does not eliminate the possibility of confusion, especially since most consumers
likely do not frequently purchase Automatic Voltage Regulators, stereo
boosters, TV sets, DVD players, etc. Unless they have jobs or hobbies that
allow them to frequently purchase these electronic products, it is not farfetched
to suppose that they may only encounter the marks in the marketplace itself
once they are about to ]Juy ,said goods once every five years or so.
Consequently, while consumers may concededly be familiar with these

goods to some extent, such familiarity will likely not be an intimate knowledge
thereof associated with the frequent and repeated purchase of said goods.
It is not difficult to imagine that ordinary purchasers looking to buy a

home entertainment set for their homes would likely not know that the
"XYZ" -branded stereo boosters and the "XYZ" -branded televisions they
encounter in the store are offered by different companies. If the consumer
happens to like the "XYZ" brand for the stereo boosters after seeing it for the
first time, said consumer will most likely associate it with the "XYZ" brand
for television set and vice versa, especially since these goods are
complementary to each other.
Even if sophisticated consumers are making a repeat purchase years

after they first bought a "KOLIN" product, confusion is still possible because
of the degree of similarity'ofthe subject marks. As mentioned above, KECI's
/(OLIN mark is a word mark. Stated simply, the goodwill over the products
will likely be associated with the "KOLIN" word among consumers' minds,
regardless of their sophistication. Thus, these consumers who prefer KECI' s
products will likely go into stores asking and looking for the "KOLIN" brand,
regardless of its stylization or additional figurative features. If they happen to
152
Id. at 242.
153
G.R. No. 158589, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 333.
154
Id. at 358. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
see KPII' s "KOLIN" -branded products, they may not readily know that the
products come from another source and mistakenly purchase those products
thinking that these products are from KECI. Any perceived visual differences
between KECI' s and KPII' s "KOLIN" mark will likely be disregarded,
especially considering that it is not unusual for companies to rebrand and
overhaul their "brand image", including their logos, every so often.
Ultimately, there is no need to speculate and imagine how an average

consumer would think and act in this hypothetical situation because, as
discussed, there is actual proof of confusion among consumers between the
KOLIN and kolin goods. 155 It is cleai: th~t consumers have actually
associated KPII's "KOLIN"-branded products with KECl's business. To
be sure, that consumers have complained about KPII's products and
associated the quality of such products with KECI' s business shows that the
concurrent use of "KOLIN" by KPII had already unfairly smeared KECI's
goodwill and reputation over its products.
F. Strength of the Mark
The factor on "strength of plaintiffs mark" pertains to the degree of

distinctiveness of marks, 156 which can be divided into five categories 157
enumerated in decreasing order of strength below:
1) Coined or fanciful marks - invented words or signs that have no real

meaning (e.g., Google, Kodak). These marks are the strongest and
have the greatest chance of being registered.
a
2) Arbitrary marks 158 -words that have meaning but have no logical
relation to a product (e.g., SUNNY as a mark covering mobile
phones, APPLE in relation to computers/phones).
3) Suggestive marks 159 - marks that hint at the nature, quality or

attributes of the product, without describing these attributes (e.g.,
SUNNY for lamps, which would hint that the product will bring
light to homes). If not considered as bordering on descriptive, this
may be allowed.
155
See rollo, pp. 167-168. The relevant excerpt reads: "More so, [KECI's] evidence consisting of various
e-mails x x x it received from public consumers reflecting their complaints, concerns, and other
information about [KPII's] goods as televisions, air-conditioning units and DVD players, are obvious
showing of actual confusion of goods as well as confusion as to origin or source [of] goods. These reveal
factual confusion of the buying public between the marks in controversy."
156
See Greene, Timothy D. and Wilkerson Jeff, Understanding Trademark Strength, 16 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 535
(2013), accessed at <https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/files/publication/files/understandingtrademarkstrength.pdf>.
157
World Intellectual Property Office, Obtain;ng, JP~ Rights: Trademarks, accessed at
<https ://www.wipo.int/ sme/en/obtain ip rights/trademarks.html>.
158
For an alternate definition, see GSJS Family Bank-Thr(ft Bank (formerly Comsavings Bank, Inc.) v. BPI
Family Bank, G.R. No. 175278, September 23, 2015, 771 SCRA 284,299.
159
For an alternate definition, see id. at 299.
4) Descriptive marks 160 - describe the feature of the product such as

quality, type, efficacy, use, shape, etc. The registration of
descriptive marks is generally not allowed under the IP Code. 161
5) Generic marks 162 -words or signs that name the species or object to
which they apply (e.g., CHAIR in relation to chairs). They are not
eligible for protection as marks under the IP Code. 163
KECI's /(OLIN mark is a fanciful or coined mark. Considering that it

is highly distinctive, confusion would be likely if someone else were to be
allowed to concurrently use such mark in commerce.
G. Bad Faith
The discussion of bad faith in the case of Zuneca Pharmaceutical v.

Natrapharm, Inc. 164 is instructive:
The concepts of bad faith and fraud were defined in Mustang-

Bekleidungswerke GmbH + Co. KG v. Hung Chiu Ming, a case decided by
the Office of the Director General of the IPO under the Trademark Law, as
amended, viz.:
What constitutes fraud or bad faith in trademark

registration? Bad faith means that the applicant or registrant
has knowledge of prior creation, use and/or registration by
another of an identical or similar trademark. In other words,
it is copying and using somebody else's trademark. Fraud,
on the other hand, may be committed by making false claims
in connection with the trademark application and
registration, particularly on the issues of origin, ownership,
and use of the trademark in question among other things.
The concept of 'fraud contemplated above is not a mere inaccurate

claim as to the origin, ownership, and use of the trademark. In civil law, the
concept of fraud has been defined as the deliberate intention to cause
damage or prejudice. The same principle applies in the context of trademark
registrations: fraud is intentionally making false claims to take
advantage of another's goodwill thereby causing damage or prejudice
to another. Indeed, the concepts of bad faith and fraud go hand-in-hand in
this context. There is no distinction between the concepts of bad faith and
16
° For an alternate definition and a concrete example, see McDonald's Corporation v. L. C. Big Mak Burger,
Inc., supra note 121, at 26.
161
xxxx
(j) Consists exclusively of signs or of indications that may serve in trade to designate the kind,
quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, time or production of the goods or
rendering of the services, or other characteristics of the goods or services[.]
162
For an alternate definition, see McDonald's Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., supra note 121,
at 26.
163
xxxx
(h) Consists exclusively of signs that are generic for the goods or services that they seek to identify[.]
164
G.R. No. 211850, September 8, 2020.
fraud in trademark registrations because the existence of one necessarily

presupposes the existence of the other. 165 (Emphasis supplied)
To recall, the KECI ownership casri, pr-0mulgated on July 31, 2006,

ruled that KECI is the owner of the KOLIN mark under the Trademark Law,
despite TKC' s opposition that confusion is likely because it had foreign
registrations for "KOLIN" and a local trademark application for KOLIN.
Thereafter, KPII (TKC's affiliate) filed a trademark application for kOILn
covering the same goods.
While KECI had squarely alleged the issue ofKPII's bad faith, 166 there
was no explicit finding of bad faith on the part of KPII in the decisions of the
IPO-BLA, IPO-DG, and the CA. After an examination of the records,
however, the Court finds that circumstances in this case would lead a
reasonable mind to conclude that KPII knew about KECI's [(OLIN
registration when it made a trademark application for ko I n.
First, there was a factual finding by the IPO-BLA that KPII is an

instrumentality of TKC and TKC directly participates in the management,
supervision, and control of KPII, viz:
An exhaustive scrutiny of the records of the case convince[s] this

Bureau to concur with the position of [KECI] that indeed, [KPII] is an
instrumentality of [TKC]. [KECI] presented substantial evidence that
[KPII] is effectively under the management, supervision and control of
[TKC] manifested through the assignment of five (5) persons to the
financial and plant operations x x x; [TKC's] admission of its direct
participation in the management, supervision and control of [KPH] x x
x; [TKC's] majority ownership of stocks in [KPII] x x x; and the
maintenance of one website of both companies and the admission to the
same xx x. 167 (Emphasis supplied)
Second, as found by the CA, 168 KPII was authorized by TKC to use the
"KOLIN" mark.
Third, KPII filed a trademark application for kolin barely two months
after KECI was declared as the owner of the mark.
Fourth, KECI and KPII may be considered as being in the same line of
business and it would have been highly improbable that KPII did not know an
existing KOLIN. mark owned by KECI, especially since it is an affiliate of
TKC. Notably, in the case of Birkenstock Orthopaedie GmbH and Co. KG v.
Phil. Shoe Expo Marketing Corp., 169 the Court agreed with the IPO's finding
165
Id. at 29.
166
Rollo, pp. 156, 160-161, 173 and 177.
167
Id. at 169.
168
Id. at 46.
169
G.R. No. 194307, November 20, 2013, 710 SCRA 474.
that the party was in bad faith because it was in the same line of business and it
was highly improbable for it to not know of the existence of BIRKENSTOCK
before it appropriated and registered this "highly distinct" mark. 170
Thus, there exists · relevant evidence and factual findings that a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion that KPII
was in bad faith.
To summarize the above discussion: (1) there is resemblance between

KECI's KOLIN and KPII's kolin marks; (2) the goods covered by KECI's
KOLIN are related to the goods covered by KPII's kol n; (3) there is
evidence of actual confusion between the two marks; (4) the goods covered
by KPII's kolin fall within the normal potential expansion of business of
KECI; ( 5) sophistication of buyers is not enough to eliminate confusion; (6)
KPII's adoption ofKECI's coined and fanciful mark would greatly contribute
to likelihood of confusion; and (7) KPII applied for ko Irn in bad faith. Thus,
KPII's application for kol{n should be denied because it would cause
likelihood of confusion and KECI' s rights would be damaged.
***
It must also be stressed that KECI was already declared as the owner of
the mark under the Trademark Law. Section 236 171 of the IP Code
states that nothing in the IP Code - which, as mentioned, logically includes
registrations made pursuant thereto - shall adversely affect the rights of the
enforcement of marks acquired in good faith prior to the effective date of said
law.
170
The relevant excerpt in Birkenstock reads:
In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Court finds the petitioner to be the
true and lawful owner of the mark "BIRKENSTOCK" and entitled to its registration, and
that respondent was in bad faith in having it registered in its name. In this regard, the Court
quotes with approval the words of the IPO Director General, viz.:
The facts and evidence fail to show that [respondent] was in
good faith in using and in registering the mark BIRKENSTOCK.
BIRKENSTOCK, obviously of German origin, is a highly distinct
and arbitrary mark. It is very remote that two persons did coin the
same or identical marks. To come up with a highly distinct and
uncommon mark previously appropriated by another, for use in the
same line of business, and without any plausible explanation, is
incredible. The field from which a person may select a trademark is
practically unlimited. As in all other cases of colorable imitations, the
unanswered riddle is why, of the millions of terms and combinations of
letters and designs available, [respondent] had to come up with a mark
identical or so closely similar to the [petitioner's] ifthere was no intent
to take advantage of the goodwill generated by the [petitioner's] mark.
Being on the same line of business, it is highly probable that the
[respondent] knew of the existence of BIRKENSTOCK and its use
by the fpetitioner], before rrespondent! appropriated the same mark
and had it registered in its name." (Emphasis supplied) Id. at 489-490.
171
IP CODE, SECTION 236. Preservation of Existing Rights. - Nothing herein shall adversely affect the
rights on the enforcement of rights in patents, utility models, industrial designs, marks and works,
acquired in good faith prior to the effective date of this Act. (n)
As seen above, the existence of likelihood of confusion is already

considered as damage that would be sufficient to sustain the opposition and
rejection of KPII' s trademark application. More than that, however, the Court
is likewise cognizant that, by granting this registration, KPII would acquire
exclusive rights over the stylized version ofKOLIN ("kolin") for a range of
goods/services, 172 i.e., covered goods, related goods/services, goods/services
falling within the normal potential expansion of KPII's business. Owing to
the peculiar circumstances of this case, this will effectively amount to a
curtailment of KECI' s right to freely use and enforce the KOLIN word
mark, or any stylized version thereof, for its own range of goods/services,
especially against KPII, regardless of the existence of actual confusion.
Thus, based on Section 122 173 vis-a-vis Section 236 174 of the IP Code, the
Court cannot give due course to KPII's trademark application for "kolln".
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is

GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated April 29, 2016 and Resolution
dated November 4, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
131917 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision of
the Office of the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office in IPC
No. 14-2007-00167 is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.
Consequently, the Trademark Application Serial No. 4-2006-010021

for ko Iin filed by respondent Kolin Philippines International, Inc. under Class
9 for "Television and DVD players" is REJECTED.
SO ORDERED.
S. CAGUIOA
,,/
172
Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Dy, Jr., supra note 103: "The scope of protection afforded to
registered trademark owners is not limited to protection from infringers with identical goods. The scope
of protection extends to protection from infringers with related goods, and to market areas that are the
normal expansion of business of the registered trademark owners." (Emphasis supplied)
173
IP CODE, SECTION 122. How Marks are Acquired. -The rights in a mark shall be acquired through
registration made validly in accordance with the provisipns of this law. (Sec. 2-A, R.A. No. 166a)
174
Id., SECTION 236. Preservation of Existing Rights. - Nothing herein shall adversely affect the rights
on the enforcement ofrights in patents, utility models, industrial designs, marks and works, acquired in
good faith prior to the effective date of this Act. (n)
WE CONCUR:
f~~~~~~~/
~M()VY' (J
ESTELA M. ~~~ERNABE
Associate Justice Associate Justice
RA
~
AM ARO-JAVIER
e Justice
HENRI
y
EDGARDO L. DELOS SANTOS
Associate Justice
Decision 38 G.R. No . 228165
sAiuE~
Associate Justice
JHOS~LOPEZ
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opini0n of the Court.
r,, ~--:-~~ --- ,,_ r~ ~---

r'll
,,.~,-,1," :,1 f.1,J;t,Opy
~ - t;, -./{ 4 .~ - - f
ANNA~Ci R.PAPA-G~ B!O~-
Deputy Clerk of Court En Ban c
OCC En Ban c, Sup:erne Court

3aepublic of Tbe, Tlbilippines: $' Upreme !court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3aepublic of Tbe, Tlbilippines: $' Upreme !court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3aepublic of Tbe, Tlbilippines: $' Upreme !court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3aepublic of tbe ,tlbilippines

KOLIN ELECTRONICS CO., G.R. No. 228165

KOLIN PHILIPPINES Promulgated: .

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of

· 14-09-643 (IPC No. 14-2007-00167), g1vmg due course to the

2. Resolution4 dated November 4, 2016, denying KECI's motion for

Antecedent cases involving related parties

1. The KECI Ownership Case

On August 17, 1993, Kolin Electronics Industrial Supply (KEIS),

In a Deed of Assignment of Assets dated November 20, 1995, Miguel

During the pendency of its application, TKC filed a verified Notice of

On December 27, 2002, Director Estrellita Beltran-Abelardo of the

TKC appealed the decision to the IPO-DG, which, in tum, issued a

TKC initially appealed the CA decision by filing with the Court a

Thus, by virtue of the KECI ownership case, KECI is the adjudicated

2. The Taiwan Kolin case

However, in another case that went up to the Court, the registration of

To recall, before filing an opposition case 38 against KECI's application

In an Order dated March 14, 2001, the Bureau of Trademarks granted

Decision 6 G.R. No. 228165

KECI filed an opposition against TKC' s application with the IPO-

On November 7, 2006, TKC filed an Answer to the Opposition,

The IPO-BLA rendered Decision No. 2007-118 49 dated August 16,

Aggrieved, KECI appealed to the CA.

On April 30, 2013, the CA issued a Decision54 in CA-G.R. SP No.

confusingly similar to KECI's "KOLIN" registration since "[t]he only

TKC then filed an appeal to the Court.

It is important lo highlight that there were three (3) marks involved

KECl's mark TKC's opposed TKC's "revived"

To clarify, while Trademark Application No. 4-1996-106310 was

The Court's Third Division stated that identical marks may be

a. TKC's goods are classified as home appliances as

b. TKC's television sets and DVD players perform

c. TKC sells and distributes its various home appliance

Further, it stated that confusion is not likely because the products

The definition laid down in Dy Buncio v. Tan Tiao Bok is better

Thus, the Court's Third Division concluded that KECI's trademark

Facts of the present case

On September 11, 2006 74 - more than a month after the promulgation

On June 12, 2007, KECI filed an opposition against K.PII's Trademark

Parties KECI KPII

In a Decision82 on IPC No. 14-2007-00167 dated September 9, 2009,

Further, the IPO-BLA found that KPH is an instrumentality ofTKC, as

An exhaustive scrutiny of the records of the case convince[ s] this

Accordingly, the IPO-BLA rejected KPII's application for kol n. The

WHEREFORE, premises considered the Notice of Opposition filed

Let the file wrapper of [kolinJ, subject matter of this case be

Aggrieved, KPH appealed the case to the IPO-DG.

On September 12, 2013, the IPO-DG issued a Decision87 on Appeal No.

Accordingly, the IPO-DG dismissed KPII's appeal. KPII then filed an

CA Decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 131917)

Faced with the issue of whether KPII is entitled to the registration of

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby

Let a copy of this Decision as well as the trademark application and

In a Comment93 dated June 5, 2017, KPII argued that the CA had

The main issue in this case is whether KPII should be allowed to

The Court's Ruling

RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY

A. Res iudicata in the concept of bar by prior iudgment