Court Opinion

ID: 9446197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:48:58.301902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:33.890932
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority.
At the outset, it is important to note that this case involves the opposition of the registration of “Hope” for perfumes and toilet water by the owner of the mark “Hope” for laxatives, denture suction powders and denture cleanser. It is immaterial what other products are manufactured under different marks and the statements in the majority opinion about other goods have no place in this case.
*696The essence of the majority opinion resides in the conclusion that
“ * * * prospective purchasers might well assume, upon seeing the mark ‘Hope’ on perfumes or toilet waters, that the maker of ‘Hope’ denture products was in some way connected with these items. Identical marks in fields as closely related in trade as over-the-counter dental products, perfumes and toilet water would, we think, be likely to give the impression of common origin. * * * ”
Unless the majority is of the opinion that denture products on the one hand and perfumes and toilet water on the other are so closely related in the public mind that the public would think that the manufacturer of the former item had expanded his business to cover the latter, it is difficult to see how its decision can be justified. The majority, however, in answer to the argument that the practice of large drug houses is to apply different trademarks to its different products, replied:
“ * * * We very much doubt, however, that the purchasing public is even aware of the practices of certain large drug houses and we feel it is highly improbable that its collective mind has been conditioned in the respect assumed.”
It would seem that this answer would, with equal logic, apply to the essence of the majority opinion heretofore set forth. It is highly doubtful that the public is aware that large drug houses manufacture both denture products and perfumes and toilet waters. The products are so unrelated that I am of the opinion that it is highly improbable that the public would ever associate these products with a common source.
There are other considerations which also militate against the conclusion reached by the majority. The majority noted the different merchandising methods employed by applicant and opposer (viz. — the use of .“Frances Denney girls” at “Frances Denney counters,” placed strategically at large department stores-, as contrasted with the ordinary drug counter sales of opposer) but felt that they “should not be given controlling significance since these practices might, change at any time.” It would seem, however, from the majority’s characterization of the products of the parties as “over-the-counter dental products, perfumes and toilet water” (emphasis added), that the majority has given no weight to the Frences Denney trade practices, for its use of the words “over-the-counter” with respect to the products of both parties would imply, at least, that all are sold in the same manner. I question whether perfumes and toilet water, which retail at $5 per quarter ounce and' $2.75 for two ounces, respectively, sold in the manner specified above, can properly be characterized as “over-the-counter” products in the same sense as that phrase-would apply to relatively inexpensive-products such as laxatives, denture suction powders and denture cleanser. I am of the opinion that the differences in-merchandising are a definite factor to be-considered in the determination of likelihood of confusion. Trade practices have-often been considered by this court as-bearing on the identical issue. Lauritzen & Co., Inc., v. Borden Co., 239 F.2d 405, 44 C.C.P.A., Patents, 720; Armour and Co. v. Organon Inc., 245 F.2d 495, 44 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1010.
Furthermore, it must be borne in mind' that expensive perfumes and toilet waters, such as are here involved are not items, which are casually purchased. On the contrary, most women exercise the -utmost care and discrimination in choosing a suitable fragrance. In view of this fact, the possibility of confusion is still further minimized. Sleepmaster Products Co., Inc., v. American Auto-Felt Corp., 241 F.2d 738, 44 C.C.P.A., Patents, 784, 788.
The foregoing considerations leave no-doubt in my mind that concurrent use of applicant’s and opposer’s marks with respect to the goods here involved would not create a likelihood of confusion. I would affirm.