Case Name: Burton-Dixie Corp. v. Restonic Corp.
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1956-06-20
Citations: 43 C.C.P.A. 950
Docket Number: No. 6185
Parties: Burton-Dixie Corp. v. Restonic Corp.
Judges: Before O’Connell, Acting Chief Judge, and Johnson, Worley, Cole, and Jackson (retired), Associate Judges
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 950–956

Head Matter:
234 F. 2d 668; 110 USPQ 272
Burton-Dixie Corp. v. Restonic Corp.
(No. 6185)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
June 20, 1956
Wilson é Geppert, Ira J. Wilson and Oarl F. Geppert for appellant.
' Bill emú, Bill, Roy W. Bill and John W. Bill (Edwin E. Greigg of counsel) for appellee.
[Oral argument January 12, 1956, by Mr. Geppert and Mr. Greigg]
Before O’Connell, Acting Chief Judge, and Johnson, Worley, Cole, and Jackson (retired), Associate Judges

Opinion:
JOHNSON, Judge,
delivered the opinion of tbe court:
This is a trademark opposition proceeding, brought by Burton-Dixie Corporation, owner of the trademark OBTHOFLEX (or, as apparently used in advertising, OBTHO-FLEX), in opposition to the registration of the mark OBTHOTONIC to the applicant, Bestonic Corporation. According to stipulation, the marks are used on substantially identical goods, mattresses and box springs, which are marketed through the same channels of trade to the same classes of purchasers and are sold in competition with each other.
Opposer's mark, OBTHOFLEX, is registration No. 292,811, registered March 29, 1932, under the Act of 1905, renewed March 29, 1952, and republished under the Act of 1946 on October 24, 1950. The mark has been in continuous use since 1931. Bestonic's application is serial No. 617,211, filed August 1,1951, first use having been alleged as of June 18,1951.
The Examiner of (Trademark) Interferences sustained the opposition, basing his decision primarily on his belief that the term "Ortho," appearing on both marks, would be likely to cause the marks in their entirety to be confused or mistaken by purchasers when applied to identical goods.
The Assistant Commissioner of Patents, acting for the Commissioner, reversed the holding of the examiner, being of the opinion that both marks were secondary marks, that purchasers were likely to remember the marks in their entireties rather than only the prefix, and that, considered in their entireties, there was no likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception between them. Opposer, Burton-Dixie Corporation, appeals from that decision.
The basic issue in this case, of course, is whether the mark sought to be registered, OBTHOTONIC, so resembles the registered mark, OBTHOFLEX, "as to be likely, when applied to the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers Trade-Mark Act of 1946, section 2; 15 U. S. C. 1952 ed. § 1052. If it does, then the opposition must be sustained.
This case presents an interesting question of whether the fact that opposer's registered mark has been used with other marks in the past may properly be considered on the issue of likelihood of confusion in the future. Specifically, the Assistant Commissioner stated:
It is clear from the record that the marks of the parties are secondary marks, opposer's primary mark being "Slumberon" and applicant's being "Restonie." ⅜ ⅞ ⅞ ⅛ ⅜ * #
As stated above, both marks are secondary marks. The record supports the view that the commercial impression created by them is tied closely to their use with the primary marks — i. e., "Restonie Orthotonic" and "Slumberon Ortho-Flex." I am not convinced that they are mere model, style or type designations, however; but in view of the suggestive nature of the marks, their use as secondary martes, their sound and significance, I do not believe that there is any likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception of purchasers. [Italics ours.]
Opposer challenges the factual basis of this holding. An examination of the exhibits and testimony, while showing that ORTHO-FLEX was frequently used with "Slumberon," shows that, it was sometimes used alone and sometimes with a mark other than "Slumber-on." We do not thing that' the meager evidence here is sufficient to establish that ORTHOFLEX is indeed a secondary mark. However, the more basic question is whether such concurrent use is properly considered at all in an opposition proceeding. The Assistant Commissioner cited no cases in support of her holding, and appellee has not seen fit to do so either.
On first impression, it would seem logical to conclude that if marks involved in an opposition were used concurrently with other primary marks, that likelihood of confusion would be substantially diminished, because the use of the primary mark would help distinguish the goods. However, the cases which have considered the question have rejected that reasoning. In Hat Corp. of America v. John B. Stetson Co., 42 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1001, 223 F. 2d 485, 106 USPQ 200, the'involved marks were "Railbird" and "Gamebird," and the Assistant Commissioner had held that " the marks of both parties are apparently always used on conjunction with the more familiar and better known trade-marks 'Hobs' (opposer's) and 'Stetson' and device (api plicant's), thereby eliminating likelihood that purchasers would be confused,.misled or deceived into believing that the hats so marked' emanate from the same source; This court, although affirming the decision below, distinctly indicated that it did not follow the reasoning of the Assistant Commissioner with respect to the usage of the marks with STETSON and HOBBS, because the controversy as presented in the opposition proceedings was between "Game Bird" and "Railbird" alone.
In Weco Products v. Milton Ray Co., 31 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1214, 143 F. 2d 985, 62 USPQ 312, we said:
Appellant urges one otlier point, to the effect that its mark "Yray" is associated with, and used in connection with, the name "Dr. West's," and that this should have been given consideration in connection with the determination of the likelihood of confusion. It is too obvious to require extended discussion thht this argument is without merit. Appellant's practice in this regard would be subject to change, [citing cases.]
The logic behind these cases becomes clear. To argue that marks which have been used as "secondary" marks will not be confused, it is necessary to assume tha the marks will continue to be so used in the future. Such an assumption could be justified only if each party had no legal right to use his registered mark by itself. So far as we are aware, there is no such limitation on the right to use a mark, at least under the facts of this case. We would not be willing to support a ruling which would give a broad right to register a mark, but a limited right to use that mark. Neither are we willing to assume that ORTHO-FLEX and ORTHOTONIC will continue to be used in association with other marks. It is not uncommon for a manufacturer to use more than one mark on his goods, and to vary the emphasis placed on various marks, to change the way in which a mark is used, or to discontinue it altogether.
The exhibits in this case' show that ORTHO-FLEX has been used in several different ways in the past, sometimes alone, sometimes' with other marks, sometimes emphasized, sometimes not. There is no justification for assuming that such variation will not occur in the future. Likewise, we see no reason for assuming that applicant will continue to use ORTHOTONIC with "Restonic." The mark it seeks to register is ORTHOTONIC without qualification, not RESTONIC ORTHOTONIC.
Another facet of the case which has been emphasized by appellee, is the fact that the mattresses, etc., which have been sold by opposer bearing the ORTHO-FLEX mark, contain springs constructed according to certain patents owned by the opposer. Appellee argues that the mark ORTHO-FLEX has been used to identify the patented spring construction, rather than the mattress, and such appears to have been the holding of the Assistant Commissioner, although it is not clear what weight she gave to that holding. In our opinion, how ever, the exhibits in the case show that such has not been the exclusive use of the mark. Exhibit 3, for example, is an advertisement which states " be sure to use an Ortho-Flex Mattress, and which lists among the exclusive features of that mattress the "Patented Ortho-Flex Sleep Unit." Thus, it would appear that "Ortho-Flex" has -been used not only to designate the spring construction, but also the mattresses containing such construction. Furthermore, applicant's answer to the notice of opposition states,. "Applicant admits that the goods of the parties hereto are of the same descriptive properties, namely mattresses and bed or box springs ." The notice had additionally alleged that the goods were identical, which was. not denied in the answer. Any argument that the goods of the parties are not identical — that is, that ORTHO-FLEX is applied to patented "sleep units" and not to the goods of the application — is therefore out of order at this stage. Trade-Mark Rule 23.1; Fed. Rule of Civ. Pro. 8 (d).
Plaving disposed of the foregoing questions we now come to the basic question of whether the mark ORTHOTONIO is confusingly similar to the mark ORTHO-FLEX.
Various rules have been developed for the purpose of aiding in the determination of confusing similarity. It is of course well settled that the marks must be considered in their entireties. Apollo Shirt Co. v. The Enro Shirt Co., Inc., 35 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 849, 165 F. 2d 469, 76 USPQ, 329; Hat Corp. of America v. John B. Stetson Co., supra. But different features may be analyzed to determine whether the marks are confusingly similar, Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Roch D. Kawerk, Etc., 32 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 954, 148 F. 2d 557, 65 USPQ 218, and similarities and dissimilarities should both be considered, Younghusband v. Kurlash Co., Inc., 25 C. C. P. A. (Pat ents) 886, 94 F. 2d 230, 36 USPQ 323. It has also been held that the common portions of the marks cannot be disregarded, Schering & Glatz, Inc. v. Sharp & Dohme, Inc., 32 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 827, 146 F. 2d 1019, 64 USPQ 394, but a descriptive word, which has little trademark significance, will not be regarded as the dominant part of the mark, West Disinfecting Co. v. Lan-O-Sheen Co., 35 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 706, 163 F. 2d 566, 75 USPQ 77.
It is also well settled that the test applied by this court in an opposition proceeding is the likelihood of confusion in the minds of the purchasing public as to the origin of the goods. Nestle's Milk Products, Inc. v. Baker Importing Co., Inc., 37 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1066, 182 F. 2d 193, 86 USPQ 80; Standard Laboratories, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 35 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1146, 167 F. 2d 1022, 77 USPQ 617. Since this is a subjective test, prior decisions are of little value since each case must be decided on its own particular set of facts. North Star Manufacturing Co. v. Wells Lamont Corp., 39 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 764, 193 F. 2d 204, 92 USPQ 128.
Applying the foregoing law to the present case, we are of the opinion that ORTHOTONIC and ORTHO-FLEX, when viewed in their entireties, are not confusingly similar. Even if they are not viewed in their entireties, but the similarities and dissimilarities are compared, we find that while the prefixes "ORTHO" are identical, the suffixes TONIC and FLEX do not look alike, sound alike, or have the same meaning. We feel that the dissimilarities are greater than the similarities and thus cause the marks on their entireties to be more different than alike. We come to this conclusion especially since the word "ortho" which is common to both marks is an accepted prefix having such meanings as "straight," "correct," or "regular," and therefore should not be considered the dominant portion of the marks since it is somewhat descriptive of the merchandise to which the marks áre applied in the sense that it connotes a desirable characteristic of the merchandise under consideration. We therefore conclude that the marks in their entireties neither look nor sound sufficiently alike, nor do they have the same meaning so as to warrant our concluding that when used on similar goods they would be likely to cause confusion in the trade.
For the foregoing reasons the decision appealed from is affirmed.
JacksoN, J udge, retired, recalled to participate.
WoRley, J udge, concurs in the conclusion.
O'CoNNell, Judge, was present at the argument of this case, but, because of illness, did not participate in the decision.
For a discussion of this case, see Derenberg, "The Eighth Year of Administration of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act of 1946," 45 T. M. R. 987, 998, where it is stated, " the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals appears to be more sympathetic toward protection of secondary marks, than the Office has been in some of the more recent cases."