Case ID: ccpa_51-2/html/1134-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Worley, Chief Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

329 F. 2d 1020; 141 USPQ 244
    Commerce Drug Company, Inc., d/b/a Commerce Drug Co. v. Boyle & Company
    (No. 7191)
    United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
    April 9, 1964
    
      Richard, W. Blum (Aleas Friedman and Citarles R. Allen, Jr., of counsel) for appellant.
    
      Theodore W. Miller, for appellee.
    I Oral argument March 6, 1964, by Mr. Allen, Jr.; Submitted on brief by appellee]
    Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Rich, Martin, Smith, and Almond, Jr., Associate Judges
   Worley, Chief Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Commerce Drug Company asks us to reverse the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to cancel its registration of ■“BOYLENE” for use on an antiseptic preparation for boils. Boyle & Co., petitioner, relies on prior use and registration of “Boyle” on “vitamin capsules, ferrous sulfate tablets, ointment for the treatment of hemorrhoids or piles, diethylstilbestrol tablets, strychnine tonic, tablets used for relief from minor throat irritations, quinidine . sulphate tablets, antacid tablets, folic acid tablets, tincture benzoin compound, thyroid powder, rutin tablets, aminophylline tablets, sodium salicylate, laxative tablets, tablets for the treatment of iron deficiency, multi-vitamin preparation and ephedrine sulfate.”

The board, after noting that Boyle & Co. is the prior user, and that the competing goods are pharmaceutical preparations, concluded “that the resemblance between the marks here involved are [sic] such as to be quite likely to cause purchaser confusion, and to lead purchasers to believe that ‘BOYLENE’ is but another in petitioner’s line of pharmaceutical products.”

We find no error in that reasoning or conclusion. While we appreciate appellant’s argument that Boyle is a surname whereas ■“BOYLENE” is arbitrary, the maimer in which Boyle is completely ■incorporated into Boylene results in a marked similarity of the words.

Although appellant emphasizes that there is no evidence of actual •confusion, the statutory test is a “likelihood of confusion” which, we have no doubt, is the case here.

The decision is affirmed.- 
      
      
         Registration No. 714,329, issued April 25, 1961, from an application filed November 13, 1959.
     
      
       Registration No. 51Q,716, issued June 7, 1949, from an application filed March 11, 194&.
     
      
       “XQ5. Does petitioner put out or distribute and sell an antiseptic preparation for boils under the name of ‘Boyle’ ? A. Yes.
      “XQ6. If your answer to XQ5 is in the affirmative, please annex a ‘Boyle’ label for ■such product. A. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a label or photostatic copy thereof of Boyle Drawing Salve.”