Practice question
An analyst recognizes a junior mark’s dominant resemblance to a strong earlier mark but ends the inquiry because the junior user denies intending to copy. There is evidence of related goods and overlapping trade channels. Which correction follows Kolin?
- A denial of copying conclusively ends the case
- Intent is the only factor
- Relatedness is never relevant
- Likelihood of confusion is evaluated through the relevant factors; copying intent is not an indispensable prerequisite to confusing resemblance
- Every honest user automatically obtains ownership
Legal references
- Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. v. Kolin Philippines International, Inc., G.R. No. 228165, February 9, 2021, en banc main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/feb2021/gr_228165_2021.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.