Court Opinion

ID: 9451390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:16:43.078886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:43.255659
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge
(dissenting).
The cumulative effect of the specific differences in the marks and in the goods on which they are used when considered in the light of the reasonably expected sophistication of the purchasers leads me to the conclusion that there is no likelihood of confusion in the present case. The marks themselves possess only a common similarity in prefix such as is found in other marks used with various kinds of goods. Viewed as wholes, the marks in issue have distinctive differences as well as similarities in meaning. In my opinion the differences in the technical meanings attributable to the suffix portions of the marks when considered with the specific goods to which they are applied would be more likely to accentuate these differences than it would their similarities. The technically oriented purchasers of such goods would not be likely to confuse the marks or the .goods.
I would therefore affirm the decision of the majority of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to dismiss the opposition.