Case ID: ccpa_57-2/html/1044-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rich, /udge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

425 F.2d 1271; 165 USPQ 427
    Manifatture Lane Pettinate Angelo Borghi S. p. A v. Patons & Baldwins, Limited
    (No. 8288)
    United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
    April 30, 1970
    
      Michael S. Striker, attorney of record, for appellant.
    
      Russell E. Law (Burgess, Ryan & Hicks), for appellee.
    [Oral argument April 10,1970 by Mr. Striker and Mr. Law]
    Before Worley, Chief Judge, Rich, Baldwin, Lane, Associate Judges, and Richardson, Judge, sitting by designation.
   Rich, /udge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This appeal by Manifatture Lane Pettinate Angelo Borghi S. p . A., an Italian corporation, is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, abstracted at 155 USPQ 759, sustaining the opposition filed by Patons & Baldwins, Limited, a British corporation.

The record discloses that appellant filed an application to register for “woollen yams” the following mark:

Appellee-opposer is the owner of a registration which describes the mark as consisting of “the representation of a bee 'hive with the letters ‘B B’ and tbe representation of two bees thereon,” and as being for “yarns.” The drawing is here reproduced:

The registration states:
Above the bee hive are 'the letters, character, and words “J. & J. Baldwin, Bee Hive, Trade Mark” and at the foot the words “Registered, Halifax” but these words, character, and letters do not form part of our trade-mark and may be omitted.

The record supports the findings of the board that appellee’s yarns have been sold in the United States during the past eleven years under a mark substantially as disclosed above with the J. & J. Baldwin feature omitted; that during the past six years approximately $920,-000 worth of appellee’s goods so marked were sold in this country; that priority of use resides with appellee; that the goods of the parties constitute like goods and the only question is whether appellant' applicant’s mark so resembles that of opposer-appellee as to be likely to cause confusion.

In sustaining the opposition, the board stated:

Applicant’s mark is composed of three essential features, namely, the stylized figure of a woman who is sitting in an armchair and is knitting, a giant ball of wool, and the three B’s.
Opposer’s mark as actually covered by tbe registration comprises tbe letters “B B” superimposed upon a bee Live encompassed by flowers and foilage.
Tbe letters “B B” in opposer’s mark comprise an essential and distinguishing feature thereof.
To order or call for applicant’s goods orally, one would necessarily rely upon tbe letters “B. B. B.” Furthermore tbe letters forming part of applicant’s mark comprise tbe only literal portion thereof. Tbe letters “B. B. B.” are clearly an essential and distinguishing feature of applicant’s mark.
Since tbe goods of the parties are like goods [yarns] and since tbe essential and distinguishing features of tbe respective marks are so nearly alike, it is our opinion that applicant’s mark, in its entirety, so resembles tbe mark of opposer as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake. This opinion is not without doubt but tbe doubt must be resolved in favor of tbe prior user.

Upon, consideration of tbe record and briefs and arguments of counsel, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the decision of the board and it is affirmed. 
      
       Serial No. 210,143<, filed Jan. 18,1965, based on Italian Reg. No. 105,829, oí Feb. 1, 1952.
     
      
       No. 25,669, issued December 18, 1894, to a predecessor and renewed to opposer in 1964.