Case Name: STERLING DRUG, INC., Appellant, v. M-A PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, Assignee of Charles A. Susslin, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1965-04-22
Citations: 343 F.2d 1016
Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 7306
Parties: STERLING DRUG, INC., Appellant, v. M-A PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, Assignee of Charles A. Susslin, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 343
Pages: 1016–1018

Head Matter:
STERLING DRUG, INC., Appellant, v. M-A PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, Assignee of Charles A. Susslin, Appellee.
Patent Appeal No. 7306.
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
April 22, 1965.
Worley, Chief Judge, and Martin, J., dissented.
Ernest F. Wenderoth, Washington, D. C. (William F. Weigel, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
William R. Liberman, New York City, for appellee.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges.

Opinion:
SMITH, Judge.
An application, serial No. 118,013, was filed April 17,1961 by appellee to register "M-A" for a medicinal preparation in tablet form for relief of distress or discomfort associated with over indulgence in food and/or drink.
Registration was opposed by appellant as registrant of "M-O" for a pharmaceutical preparation consisting of milk of magnesia and mineral oil. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the opposition (138 USPQ 651).
As pointed out by the board:
Since applicant does not dispute opposer's priority or the similarity between the goods of the parties, this case turns solely upon the question of whether or not the resemblances between the marks here involved are such as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception.
After comparison of the marks, the board stated:
With regard to the marks, they are of course similar to the extent that both are comprised of two letters, the first of which are identical. When viewed in there [sic] entire-ties, however, it is our opinion that "M-O" and "M-A" differ sufficiently in both sound and appearance to avoid any reasonable likelihood of their being confused in use. Cf. Holland-Rantos Company, Inc. v. Henry Laboratories, Inc., [195 F.2d 325, 39 CCPA 877] 93 USPQ 168 (CCPA, 1952).
The present appeal raises as its sole issue the correctness of the above finding.
Appellant challenges the correctness of the finding of the board as to likelihood of confusion, basing its position chiefly on what it terms "the virtual identity of the marks 'M-A' and 'M-O', and the substantial similarity of the goods to which they are applied.'*
Appellee placed numerous third party registrations in the record to support its position that letter combinations including the initial letter "M" are common in the pharmaceutical field. Appellee's brief points out that all the third party registrations include the Initial letter "M"; three involve various forms of the letter "M" alone; eight include the initial letter "M" in a two letter combination: "M.D." "MV" "MG" "MS" and "M-F" "MH". The remainder are three letter or number combinations, each starting with "M", and including MC-47, McK, MVM, MDD, MPL, MEO, MFC, MHS, MRT, MRX, MVI, MSM, MSD, MPR, MLV and MPO.
We recently had occasion to observe in Conde Nast Publications, Inc. v. American Greetings Corp., 329 F.2d 1012, 51 CCPA 1176, that third party "registrations and/or usage may be considered as tending to show that a registered mark may be a 'weak' mark and thus result in a narrowing of an opposer's rights therein."
The initial letter "M" is shown by itself to identify no particular source of goods in the fields in which appellant and appellee are using their respective marks. The only possible distinction which appellant can assert as denoting a source or origin is the use of the specific combination "M-O" on its specific goods, which consist of mineral oil and milk of magnesia in liquid form and are primarily a laxative.
Appellant argues that "the letter 'M' constitutes the first and most important part of both marks". The argument is untenable in view of the fact that in many other registrations here of record in the pharmaceutical field the letter "M" similarly constitutes "the first and most important part" of letter combination marks.
While appellee would resolve the issue here by comparison of the terminal parts of the marks and find that the letter "O" in appellant's mark is not confusingly similar to the letter "A" in appellee's mark, the decision must be predicated on a comparison of the marks in their en-tireties, as was done by the board. Upon such a comparison, we agree with the board that the marks "differ sufficiently in both sound and appearance to avoid any reasonable likelihood of their being confused in use."
We therefore affirm the decision of the board.
Affirmed.