Case Name: In re United Biscuit Company of America
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1968-12-19
Citations: 56 C.C.P.A. 784
Docket Number: No. 8045
Parties: In re United Biscuit Company of America
Judges: Before Worlet, Ohief Judge, Kirkpatrick, Judge, setting hy designation, Rich, Almond and Baldwin, Associate Judges.
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 56
Pages: 784–785

Head Matter:
404 F. 2d 997; 160 USPQ 44
In re United Biscuit Company of America
(No. 8045)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
December 19, 1968
Bair, Freeman & MoUnare, A. W. MoUnare, attorneys of record, for appellant. Robert 0. Williams, of counsel.
Joseph SeMmmel for the Commissioner of Patents.
Raymond E. Martin, of counsel.
[Oral argument December 2, 1968 by Mr. Williams and Mr. Martin]
Before Worlet, Ohief Judge, Kirkpatrick, Judge, setting hy designation, Rich, Almond and Baldwin, Associate Judges.

Opinion:
Worlet, Ohief Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The sole question here is whether an application to register "OPERA" as a trademark for cookies was properly refused by the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board on prior use and registration of "OPERA," with musical design matter, for use on wheat flour. We think it was.
That the two marks are virtually identical, there can be no doubt, and, since applicant concedes that:
* ⅜ ⅜ while the channels of trade for Applicant's goods and the goods of said registration might likely be the same, that is, sold in the same stores
we turn to the nature of the goods involved.
Granted, as appellant points out, tire specific differences between cookies as a finished product on the one hand, and raw wheat flour on the other, we do not think those differences are necessarily controlling. The fact remains that they are foodstuffs, over the counter items, sold to the same type of purchaser and presumably through the same channels of trade. Under such circumstances, we think the average purchaser, on seeing the instant trademarks on the involved goods, would likely assume a common origin. We have not overlooked appellant's allegations dealing with lack of actual confusion. That is, of course, an element to be considered but, on the facts here, not controlling.
The decision is affirmed.
Result reported at 150 USPQ 834.