Court Opinion

ID: 9448114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:23:39.791346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:17.940196
License: Public Domain

WORLEY, Chief Judge
(concurring).
I agree that the board should be reversed but for different reasons than those advanced by the majority.
First, I fail to see how the district court action can be given the controlling weight accorded it by the majority. The jurisdiction, the facts, and the issues there were wholly different from those here. There the basic issue was the right to use-, here it is the right to register. That there are substantial differences between the two in fact as well as in law is too well established to require citation of authorities.
Second, I agree with the majority that “DUNHILL” had, and has, a “special significance.” Indeed, it is so significant that there is no doubt in my mind that the average purchaser would associate “DUNHILL” and “DUNHILL TAILORS” to a degree prohibited by the provisions of Section 2(d)1 of the Lanham Act. Surely it cannot be said that such confusion would not be likely.
It is interesting to note that no application for concurrent registration has been filed, considered by the Patent Office, raised by the parties, or set forth in the reasons of appeal to this court.

. Sec. 2. Trademarks registrable on the principal register
“No trade-mark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—
* * * * #
“(d) Consists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the Patent Office or a mark or trade name previously registered in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when applied to the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers: * * * ”