Court Opinion

ID: 9442759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:58:31.36578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:13.161062
License: Public Domain

O’CONNELL, Judge
(dissenting).
It is my firm conviction that the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Patents should be reversed in this case and the opposition sustained for the reasons stated in the decision of H. H. Kalnpy, Examiner of Interferences, the controlling summary of which reads as follows:
“The applicant seeks registration of a composite mark of which the only spoken portion, and the dominant feature thereof, is the notation ‘Tykor’ as applied to ‘insecticides, insect and stock sprays.’
“The opposer’s right of action is predicated primarily on an allegation of prior use and ownership of the notation ‘Turco’, as a trade mark for insecticides.
“While it is true, as contended by the applicant, that its mark differs somewhat from that of the opposer, the examiner is nevertheless of the opinion that the notations ‘Turco’ and ‘Tykor’ are too nearly alike in sound to be used concurrently for the substantially identical goods here involved, without reasonable likelihood of confusion in trade. Therefore, the only statutory issue for determination herein re*626lates to priority of use as between the parties.
“The record, satisfactorily establishes that the opposer is here the prior user of its mark as applied to insecticides. * *”