Case Name: In re Avedis Zildjian Co.
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1968-05-16
Citations: 55 C.C.P.A. 1126
Docket Number: No. 7834
Parties: In re Avedis Zildjian Co.
Judges: Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Judges Rich, Smith, Almond, Kirkpatrick.
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 1126–1130

Head Matter:
394 F.2d 860; 157 USPQ 517
In re Avedis Zildjian Co.
(No. 7834)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
May 16, 1968
Harold E. Cole for appellant.
Joseph Schimmel (George C. Roeming, Joseph Nakaumura, of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents.
[Oral argument November 8, 1967 by Mr. Cole and Mr. Nakamura]
Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Judges Rich, Smith, Almond, Kirkpatrick.
Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
KjrkpatRick, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an appeal by Avedis Zildjian Co. from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming the examiner's decision, refusing registration of the trademark A. ZILDJIAN & CIE. with designs and lettering as appears below:
The mark sought is for cymbals and was refused registration by the examiner and the board on the ground of likelihood of confusion with two registrations held by the Fred Gretsch Manufacturing Co. for the same goods: ZILDJIAN (No. 245,846) and K. ZILDJIAN CO. with designs and lettering as appears below:
Appellant and the Fred Gretsch Manufacturing Co., hereafter designated Gretsch, have sold domestic made cymbals and foreign made cymbals respectively since about 1928.
On September 19,1929, in an action between appellant and Gretsch a consent decree was entered which provided, inter alia, that (1) Gretsch was the owner of all three marks noted above, (2) the appellant could use the surname Zildjian on cymbals provided it was always preceded by the full first name of any Zildjian associated with the appellant and the words "made in U.S.A." were prominently stamped on the cymbals, (3) the appellant would not use the name "A. Zildjian & Co." or "K. Zildjian & Co.", and (4) in the event any of the three registrations were cancelled, then the appellant could use any of the names or designs so registered. This consent decree is still in force.
Appellant has hitherto sought to cancel registrations of all three of those marks owned by Gretsch but has succeeded only in having cancelled (due to abandonment) the registration of the mark which, with a minor modification, is sought to be registered here. 97 USPQ 41 (Patent Office Examiner-in-Chief 1953), 112 USPQ 424 (E.D. N.Y. 1956), 116 USPQ 216 (2d Cir. 1958).
An application by appellant to register the cancelled mark was similarly rejected by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in 1959 on the ground of likelihood of confusion. In re Avedis Zildjian Co., 120 USPQ 493 (TT&AB 1959). Appellant contends, however, that the law has changed since that rejection, citing In re National Distillers and Chemical Corp. (MERITO) 49 CCPA 854, 297 F. 2d 941, 132 USPQ 271 (1962), and In re Electro-Vox, Inc., 134 USPQ 463 (TT&AB 1962). It is appellant's contention that these cases stand for the proposition that consent of a registrant arising from a consent decree demonstrates that there is no likelihood of confusion.
We think, however, that the following is an accurate summary of this court's views as expressed in former opinions.
However, the interests of the public may not be ignored; and when it appears that the goods are so nearly related that their sales under identical trade marks would be likely to confuse the public or to deceive purchasers , registration must be denied notwithstanding the owner's consent.
See also In re Wilson Jones Company, 52 CCPA 805, 337 F. 2d 670, 143 USPQ 238, in which this court pointed out the difference in the effect of a consent to register and a consent to use.
We agree with the above statement and also with the finding of the board that there is no reasonable doubt that the mark sought to be registered is likely to cause confusion. It follows that the decision of the board will be affirmed.
In re Avedis Zildjian Co., 147 USPQ 82 (TTAB 1965).
The Fred Gretsch Manufacturing Co. v. Aram Zildjian et al., Equity No. 3089 (D.C. Mass. 1929).
Assistant Commissioner Frazer in George A. Breon & Co., Inc. v. Abraham Aronovic, S3 USPQ 390 (1939).
TIie present appeal appears to be but another skirmish in the protracted litigation involving the name "Zildjian" in connection with trademarks on cymbals. The background and some of the history which underlies the present appeal will be found in the following reported decisions:
Avedis Zildjian Co. v. Fred Gretsch Mfg. Co., 251 F. 2d 530, 116 USPQ 216 (2d Cir. 1958), affirming Avedis Zildjian Co. v. Fred Gretsch Mfg. Co., 147 F. Supp. 614, 112 USPQ 424 (E.D.N.Y. 1956);
In re Avedis Zildjian Co., 120 USPQ 493 (TTAB 1959) ;
Ex parte Avedis Zildjian Co., 117 USPQ 301 (Comm. Pat. 1958) ;
Ex parte Avedis Zildjian Co., 115 USPQ 98 (Comm. Pat. 1957) ;
Avedis Zildjian Co. v. Fred. Gretsch Mfg. Co., 97 USPQ 41 (P.O. Exr. in Ch. 1953).