Case Name: QUAKER CITY CHOCOLATE & CONFECTIONERY CO., Inc., v. KERNAN
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1922-02-06
Citations: 278 F. 592
Docket Number: No. 1466
Parties: QUAKER CITY CHOCOLATE & CONFECTIONERY CO., Inc., v. KERNAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 278
Pages: 592–592

Head Matter:
QUAKER CITY CHOCOLATE & CONFECTIONERY CO., Inc., v. KERNAN.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 11, 1922.
Decided February 6, 1922.)
No. 1466.
Trade-marks and trade-names and unfair competition <&wkey;43 — “Quaker Maid” held likely to be confused! with “Quaker City” as mark for candy.
The use of the words “Quaker Maid” as a trade-mark for candy is likely to create confusion in the trade with an existing trade-mark, “Quaker City,” which was placed in the same position on the package and in similar letters, so that the owner of the latter mark is entitled to prevent the registration of the former as a trade-mark.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
Application by Christine M. Kernan for registration of a trademark, opposed by the Quaker City Chocolate & Confectionery Company, Inc. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents against the opposer, the opposer appeals.
Reversed.
Charles PI. Howson and Rennard N. Ware, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Joshua R. H. Potts, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Opinion:
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
This is a trade-mark opposition, in which appellant company opposes the registration by appellee of the words "Quaker Maid" as a trade-mark for candy.
It appears that, long prior to appellee's use of the mark appellant had used the words "Quaker City" as a trade-mark for candy. The marks are both printed in script, and similarly situated on the packages; hence the only question here presented is the likelihoo'd of their use creating confusion in trade.
The Examiner of Interferences sustained the opposition, but was reversed by the Commissioner. We think the Examiner was clearly right. The goods on which the respective marks are used are the same, and would, undoubtedly, be known to the trade as "Quaker Candies."
The distinguishing features of the marks and the manner in which they are used are not so pronounced as to insure the purchasing public against deception.
The decision of the Commissioner is reversed.