Case ID: ccpa_43-2/html/0795-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’Connell, Acting Chief Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

230 F. 2d 440; 109 USPQ 45
    Princess Pat, Ltd. v. Tursi
    (No. 6174)
    United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
    February 21, 1956
    
      James R. McKnight for appellant.
    
      Parker Cook for appellee.
    [No oral argument. Case submitted on brief by appellant on January 10, 1956, no brief was filed by appellee]
    Before;, O,’Connell, Acting Chief Judge, and Johnson, Worley, Cole, and Jackson (retired), Associate Judges
   O’Connell, Acting Chief Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Examiner-in-Chief of the United States Patent Office, acting' for the Commissioner of Patents, 101 USPQ 346, which decision affirmed, that of the Examiner of Interferences dismissing an opposition by Princess Pat, Ltd., the appellant here, against application No. 612,379 filed by the appellee, Joseph Tursi, for registration uf the word “Pat” as a trademark for .a beard softening agent. .

The opposition was based on appellant’s registration No. 146,236* granted September 6, 19'21, and republished October 30, 1951 under the Act of 1946, for “Princess Pat” with a design including a crown and a medallion bearing a profile of a woman’s head, as a trademark for perfumes, toilet water, face powder, talcum powder, face creams,, rouges, sachet-powders, lip-sticks, eyebrow pencils, hair-tonics, scalp-ointments,' shampoos, ,eyebrowrgrowers, liquid face powders, nail-polishes, cuticle-remover, nail-bleaches, cuticle salves, hand-lotions, deodorizers, depilatories, and bath salts. •

Neither party took testimony and there is no issue of priority since the appellant’s registration was granted long prior to the earliest date of use alleged by the appellee. The sole question to be decided is whether the mark sought to be registered, as applied to a beard softener, is confusingly similar to the appellant’s mark as applied to any or all of the goods above listed.

Both Patent Office tribunals held that in view of the specific-differences between the marks and the goods involved there was ncf likelihood that confusion would result from their concurrent use. They stated that the appellee’s product, to which the mark “Pat” is applied, is used primarily, if not exclusively, by men, whereas the goods 'to which the appellant’s “Princess Pat” mark is applied are primarily intended for purchase and use by the feminine sex. :

The appellant argues here, as it did belowj that bothmen and women use the shaving cream to which appellee’s mark is applied and that both men and women also use a number of the preparations to which appellant’s mark relates, such as hair tonics, scalp ointments and shampoos. As pointed out by the Examiner-in-Chief, the record contains no evidence to support those contentions. However, assuming them to be accurate, it is still clear that appellant’s goods are designed primarily for use by the feminine trade and appellee’s by the masculine. Accordingly, despite the fact that all the goods may be sold in the same stores and occasionally bought by persons of both sexes, there is a material difference in their primary markets and customer appeals.

The foregoing distinction is accentuated by the fact that the'name “Pat,” standing alone, has a distinctly masculine significance, while “Princess Pat,” with a medallion bearing a profile of a woman’s’head, is definitely feminine. ■

Moreover, the appellee’s mark consists of but a single word, ..while .the appellant’s mark includes .prominent design features. While such -features alone may not be controlling, they cannot .be properly overlooked in deciding the question 'of confusing similarity. In re Malvina D. Myers, Etc., 40 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 747, 201 F. 2d 379, 96 USPQ 238.

In tbe final analysis,, the question of confusing similarity 'is usually one which must be determined by individual judgment based oirall the circumstances of the particular case involved.

After a careful consideration of the present case, we are in agreement with the tribunals of the Patent Office that the concurrent use of the marks here involved on the goods of the respective parties would not be likely to result in confusion.

The decision of the Examiner-in-Chief is affirmed.

JacesoN, Judge, retired, recalled to participate.