Case Name: Food Specialty Co., Inc. v. Catz American Co., Inc.
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1970-11-25
Citations: 58 C.C.P.A. 710
Docket Number: No. 8352
Parties: Food Specialty Co., Inc. v. Catz American Co., Inc.
Judges: Before Rich, Almond, Baldwin, Lane, Associate Judges, and McManus, Judge, sitting by designation.
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 710–713

Head Matter:
433 F. 2d 817; 167 USPQ 680
Food Specialty Co., Inc. v. Catz American Co., Inc.
(No. 8352)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
November 25, 1970
Robert W. Beach, attorney of record, for appellant. George R. Jones (Beale & Jones), of counsel.
S. Stephen Baker, for appellee.
[Oral argument October 9,1970 by Mr. Beach and Mr. Baker]
Before Rich, Almond, Baldwin, Lane, Associate Judges, and McManus, Judge, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
Eich, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (abstract 156 USPQ 715) denying appellant's petition to cancel appellee's Principal Eegister registration No. 720,077, of Aug. 15, 1961, of the trademark "HEEE, KITTY!" for canned cat food. We reverse.
Appellant's petition is predicated on its ownership of the trademark "Kitty" for cat food, registered on the Principal Eegister Aug. 9,1960, Eeg. No. 702,658. Appellant's filing date, Jan. 30,1956, antedates ap-pellee's date of first use, Aug. 19,1959. Priority is therefore not an issue. The goods must legally be regarded as identical and the sole question for decision is likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception. 15 USC 1052(d).
The decision of the board herein was rendered Jan. 12, 1968, prior to our decision in Food Speciality Co. v. Standard Products Co., 56 CCPA 1005, 406 F.2d 1397, 161 USPQ 46 (Mar. 13, 1969). In that case we reversed the board and sustained an opposition by appellant here, based on the same registration relied on here, to registration of the trademark "Pretty Kitty" for cat food. Appellant deems that precedent controlling here. So do we.
In the "Pretty Kitty" case we rejected the argument that "Kitty" is merely descriptive and generic as applied to cat food while recognizing the obvious fact that it is "not entirely arbitrary," as appellee contends. We Reid that confusion would nevertheless be likely to result from the concurrent use of "Kitty" and "Pretty Kitty" on cat food. We have nearly the same issue here regarding the likelihood of confusion between "Kitty" and "HERE, KITTY!" and we are of the same opinion: confusion or mistake would be likely.
The only new argument here, as compared with the prior case, is that this is a cancellation whereas the prior case was an opposition. We are unable to see that that difference is significant. Appellee cites certain dictum from the opinion in In re Myers, 40 CCPA 747, 201 E.2d 379, 96 USPQ 238 (1953), in support of its thesis that the situation in a cancellation is.quite different from that in an opposition because, quoting from Myers, "The cancellation of one's trade-mark may prove destructive to the business built about it." Myers quoted no authority for that statement, which is not accurate. It is a registration which is cancelled, not a trademark. There is no way to cancel a trademark. Myers was otherwise in error, and we cannot accept its dictum. Furthermore, Myers was an ex parte appeal. Appellee took no testimony in this case and there is no evidence that it presently has any business under its registered mark.
It is interesting to note that the board cited its own prior decision in the "Pretty Kitty" case as a precedent for its decision herein. We reversed that precedent. In considering our prior "Pretty Kitty" decision to be "controlling" herein, we do so in the sense that the logic underlying the prior decision compels the decision here, not that the decision as to another mark is binding.
The decision of the board is reversed.