Case ID: ccpa_17-2/html/1110-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GaeRett, Judge, Bland, Judge:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Kenilworth Manufacturing Co.
    (No. 2210)
    
      United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
    April 29, 1930
    
      Bakin & Avery (Willard D. Baltin of counsel) for appellant.
    
      Louis Alexander for appellee.
    [Oral argument January 10, 1930, by Mr. Eakin and Mr. Alexander]
    Before Graham, Presiding Judge, and Bland, Hatfield, Garrett, and Lenroot, Associate Judges
   GaeRett, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In this case appellant (opposer) has appealed from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents sustaining the action of the examiner of interferences dismissing the opposition to the application of ap-pellee for registration as a trade-mark of the compound word “ Zip-Midy,” having superimposed thereon in a panel shaped box or elongated rectangle the word “ Kenilworth.”

Opposer is the owner of the trade-mark registered April I, 1925, No. 191090, comprising the word “ Zipper ” used on boots and overshoes of rubber and fabric. Appellee (applicant) states use on and for “ wearing apparel for men, women, and children — namely middies and sport shirts made of knitted and textile fabrics.”

We think the case is on all fours with one between the same parties, No. 2209, heard and decided concurrently herewith wherein the words at issue are “ Zipper ” and “ Zip-Knick.”

The only resemblance in the marks themselves is contained in the single syllable “ Zip.” In the instant case the imposition of the word “ Kenilworth ” over or upon the larger letters “ Zip-Midy ” tends to make the resemblance even more remote than that existing between the marks “ Zipper ” and “ Zip-Knick ” in plain letters'in case 2209.

We think the marks are entirely dissimilar and that the use by appellee of “ Zip-Midy,” as proposed, would not be likely to cause confusion in the mind of the public or deceive purchasers and should be admitted to registration. '

The decision of the commissioner is affirmed.

DISSENTING OPINION

Bland, Judge:

This is a companion case to suit No. 2209 and suit No. 2211 between the same parties. In suit No. 2209 the Kenil-worth Mfg. Co. was granted registration for the term “ Zip-Knick ” as applied to certain kinds of men’s, women’s, and children’s knickers, etc. In suit No. 2211 it was granted the right to register the term “ Zip-Over ” in connection with the word “ Kenilworth ” for use on sweaters and sweat shirts, and in this case appellee was granted the right to register “ Zip-Midy ” in connection with the word “ Kenilworth ” for use on wearing apparel for men, women, and children, including a middy, etc.

For the reasons set out in suit No. 2209, decided concurrently herewith, I dissent from the views of my associates.