Court Opinion

ID: 9456741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:01:16.017068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:05.342717
License: Public Domain

*1037RICH, Judge, dissenting, in which LANE, Judge, joins.
The goods of appellant as well as the goods named in the two reference registrations being “stereo” (or “Stere-O”) equipment, the only arbitrary, non-descriptive portions of the marks are “MASTER” and “MATIC.” I see no likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception from concurrent use. “MASTER” and “MATIC” call up entirely different mental associations, do not look alike or sound alike, and are a common English word and a clearly recognizable part of a different common word, respectively.
It seems unlikely that if applicant’s mark were passed to publication that the owner of the reference marks would be likely to oppose.