Case Name: Librascope, Incorporated (Now by Merger) Librascope Division General Precision, Inc. v. Libraphone, Inc.
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1963-03-20
Citations: 50 C.C.P.A. 1142
Docket Number: No. 6883
Parties: Librascope, Incorporated (Now by Merger) Librascope Division General Precision, Inc. v. Libraphone, Inc.
Judges: Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Rich, Martin, Smith, and Almond, Jb., Associate Judges
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 1142–1147

Head Matter:
314 F. 2d 580; 137 USPQ 53
Librascope, Incorporated (Now by Merger) Librascope Division General Precision, Inc. v. Libraphone, Inc.
(No. 6883)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
March 20, 1963
Theodore B. Lassagne, Jas. M. Baylor, Baylor & Beal, for appellant.
Charles R. Allen, Jr., for appellee.
[Oral argument December 5, 1962, by Mr. Lassagne and Mr. Allen, Jr.]
Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Rich, Martin, Smith, and Almond, Jb., Associate Judges

Opinion:
'Smith, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 131 USPQ 76, which dismissed appellant's opposition to appellee's application for registration of the mark "Libraphone" in association with a design showing a row of books and the horn portion of a speaker. The mark is used on "grooved phonograph records. " Opposer-appellant, the prior user, asserted in its Notice of Opposition that the mark sought to be registered is confusingly similar to its registered trademark "LIBRASCOPE."
The record consists of stipulated testimony which the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board summarized as follows:
According to the testimony, opposer, through its predecessor in title, first used the trademark "LIBRASCOPE" in the year 1937 on a special type computer for determining the position and load center in an airplane. During the 1940's, opposer expanded its business under the mark to include other types of computers, and in the early 1950's to include other types of scientific instruments such as read/record heads for recording or reading digital computers and other data recording apparatus. In 1954, opposer introduced to the commercial market a "LIBRASCOPE" demagnetizer, which is an electrical device for removing prior recordings from magnetic tape, thereby making the tape ready for reuse, and in the same year it began marketing, under the mark "RECORD LIFE", a liquid preparation for the surface treatment and cleaning of photograph [sic] records. Applicant's trade name appears in the advertising and on the' packages in which such preparations are sold. During the year 1956, opposer expended approximately $100,000 in the advertising of its various "LIBRASCOPE" products.
Applicant's record shows that it is engaged in the marketing of phonograph records, known in the trade as "talking books" because they consist of complete renditions of books by theatrical artists, under the mark "LIBRAPHONE." Such phonograph records are generally sold by applicant to hospitals, libraries, schools, and like institutions, and applicant's advertising in newspapers and trade publications is directed to such institutional users. In connection with the sale of its recordings, applicant also advertises and sells record players, earphones, and turntable adapters under the trademark of the manufacturer thereof. In addition thereto, the record players also bear applicant's mark "LIBRAPHONE."
We agree with, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that:
opposer's magnetic tape demagnetizer and phonograph record cleaner, and applicant's phonograph records must be considered as products which would normally move through the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers and are of such character that they might readily be assumed to originate with the same producer if sold under the same or similar marks.
Therefore, the sole issue presented is whether the mark sought to be registered, "Libraphone" and its design, so resembles the registered mark, "LIBRASOOPE", as to be likely, when applied to the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or mistake or deceive purchasers." 15 U.S.C. 1052(d).
In comparing the marks as applied to the goods, the board concluded that:
While both applicant's "LIBRAPHONE" and opposer's "LIBRASCOPE" contain the term "LIBRA" as the prefix portion thereof, it is readily apparent that the prefix of applicant's mark is derived from and suggests the well-known Latin word meaning "book". The prefix of opposer's mark and/or trade name, as used in connection with its goods, would have no such connotation to purchasers thereof. Since "LIBRAPHONE", on the one hand, and "LIBRASCOPE", on the other, otherwise differ in sound, appearance, and significance, it is concluded that, despite the common occurrence of the prefix "LIBRA" in both, there is no reasonable likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception of purchasers.
We do not agree with, this conclusion. Even if we were to assume as the board did that the prefix "LIBRA" is in fact derived from the Latin word "liber," it is unlikely that the average purchaser, whether he had a knowledge of Latin or not, would in the act of purchasing the goods to which such marks are applied, take the time to analyze the marks so carefully and find, as did the board, the subtle and latent differences in meaning for the common prefix "LIBRA". Even assuming that a purchaser would apply to the two marks the semantic analysis which gives rise to the different meanings found by the board, the fact remains that the word "LIBRA" in each mark is identical in both sound and appearance.
In comparing the marks in their entireties, it is our opinion that there are sufficient similarities between "LIBRASCOPE" and "Libra-phone," when applied to the goods, that confusion, mistake or deception of purchasers is likely.
While prior decisions usually are of little value in determining likelihood of confusion between any two specific marks, the marks here in issue, consisting of a common portion ("LIBRA") and a terminal word of common meaning ("PHONE" and "SCOPE"), must be analyzed as this court did in the case of L. & C. Hardtmuth, Inc. v. Fabrique Suisse De Crayons Caran D'Ache S.A., 48 CCPA 873, 287 F. 2d 599, 129 USPQ 103. In finding likelihood of confusion between applicant's "Techograph" and opposer's "Technicrayon" and "Tech-niflex", Judge Rich stated that:
Whatever may be said about the right hand ends of the marks, there is substantial identity in the left hand ends. "Teehni-" or "Techno-" appears to be quite arbitrary as applied to pencils and there is but an insignificant difference between the two forms. It seems to us to be the striking or conspicuous or dominant portion of all of the marks as well as the portion of greatest trademark significance.
When so analyzed, it is our opinion that there are sufficient similarities between "LIBRASCOPE" and "Libraphone", as applied to at least some of the goods of the respective parties that confusion, mistake or deception of purchasers is quite likely. While we have no doubts as to this conclusion, should any doubt exist, it should be resolved against applicant, who as the later user, is the newcomer. L. & C. Hardtmuth, Inc. v. Fabrique Suisse De Crayons Caran D' Ache S.A., supra.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is reversed.
Ser. No. 35,661, filed Aug. 16, 1957.
Opposer's exhibits K through P, inclusive, are copies of the following registrations for the word "LIBRASCOPE" alone for use on a variety of goods.
Certificate Bo. Date
372,767 November 14, 1939
584,648 January 12, 1954
587,287 March 23, 1954
612,471 September 20, 1955
620,318 January 31, 1956
643,924 April 9, 1957
The word "Applicant's" apparently should be "Opposer's.!