Case Name: Endo Laboratories, Inc. v. "Fo-We" Forschungs-Und Verwertungs-Anstalt
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1965-12-09
Citations: 53 C.C.P.A. 761
Docket Number: No. 7503
Parties: Endo Laboratories, Inc. v. “Fo-We” Forschungs-Und Verwertungs-Anstalt
Judges: Before Rich, Acting Chief Judge, and Martin, .Smith, and Almond, Jr., Associate Judges, and Judge William H. Kibkpateick
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 761–762

Head Matter:
353 F. 2d 247; 147 USPQ 493
Endo Laboratories, Inc. v. “Fo-We” Forschungs-Und Verwertungs-Anstalt
(No. 7503)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
December 9, 1965
Charles It. Allen, Jr., Alea Friedman for appellant.
Russell L. Law for appellee.
[Oral argument November 5, 1965 by Mr. Allen, Jr., and Mr. Law]
Before Rich, Acting Chief Judge, and Martin, .Smith, and Almond, Jr., Associate Judges, and Judge William H. Kibkpateick
United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Chief Judge Worley, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28, united States Code.

Opinion:
Kirkpatrick, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing an opposition filed by the appellant, Endo Laboratories, Inc., to the appellee's application for registration of a trademark. The opposition is based upon the opposer's prior use. The marks involved in the case are COUMADIN for the opposer and DIOCOUMINE for the applicant. The goods of both parties are anti-coagulants which are derived in part from the drug covmarin and are competitive in character.
We agree with the board that persons informed in such matters would probably recognize that the goods to which the marks were applied were derivatives of coumarin, but that fact would not be likely to give rise to confusion because, when considered in their entireties, the marks neither look nor sound alike.
The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed.