Case Name: S. S. WHITE DENTAL MFG. CO. v. MACDONALD
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1923-01-02
Citations: 285 F. 1005
Docket Number: No. 1530
Parties: S. S. WHITE DENTAL MFG. CO. v. MACDONALD.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 285
Pages: 1005–1005

Head Matter:
S. S. WHITE DENTAL MFG. CO. v. MACDONALD.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted November 21, 1922.
Decided January 2, 1923.)
No. 1530.
•Tratíe-márks and trade-names ami unfair competition <@=>43 — Mark “Whiieeth” and mark “S. S. White” not likely to cause confusion.
The concurrent use of the word “Whiteeth,” written in a distinctive way, as a trade-mark for tooth paste, would not be likely to cause confusion with trade-mark “S. S. White,” applied to the same class of goods, though opposer's goods were sometimes alluded to as “White’s goods.”
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
Application by James Macdonald for registration of a trade-mark, opposed by the S. S. White Denial Manufacturing Company. From a decision dismissing the opposition, opposer appeals.
Affirmed.
, Henry N. Paul and Frank B. Fox, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Charles E. Francis, of New York City, for appellee'.
Before SMYTH, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

Opinion:
ROBB, Associate Justice.
Appeal from concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals, dismissing the opposition of S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company, a corporation, to the registration by appellee of the word "Whiieeth," written in a distinctive way, as a trade-mark for tooth paste; the contention of appellant being that applicant's mark conflicts with its mark "S. S. White," applied to the same class of goods. We here reproduce the two marks:
In view of the distinctive manner in which appellee's mark is written, we are unable to say that its concurrent use with the mark of appellant would be likely to create confusion, which is the only question before us in this proceeding. The result would be the same, were we to assume, as the evidence indicates, that appellant's goods a.re sometimes alluded to as "White's" goods. In other words, there is nothing in appellee's mark, as now written and claimed, to lead any one to believe that the goods to which it is applied and the goods of appellant have a common origin.
The decision therefore is affirmed.
Affirmed.
t$zz>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes