Court Opinion

ID: 9450689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:55:31.033037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:25.450694
License: Public Domain

RICH, Judge
(dissenting).
I consider confusion at least likely, even probable. Most people would recognize “La” as the feminine definite article and, I think, attach little trademark significance to it. The Italian word for valley is “valle.” The French word for valley is vallée (f) orvallon (m). “Valli” in Italian is the plural of “valle” and the plural definite article would be “le.” “La valli” lacks meaning in English, Italian, or French. “Bally” has not been shown to have any meaning either, other than its trademark significance as indicating the origin of shoes. We are therefore dealing with two arbitrary marks, not recognizable words of the language.
Due to the similarity in sound and general aural impression — including the impression on the sound-memory center of the brain where names are remembered, or partially remembered — it seems probable to me that prospective purchasers who have heard something good about Bally shoes might readily be deceived by a salesperson desiring to sell la Valli shoes or otherwise confused into buying Valli shoes on a hazy recollection of the reputation of Bally shoes.
I see no justification for bolstering up the proprietary rights in a mark, by registration, which inexcusably approaches so closely to Bally.
There is no question about opposer’s priority and the goods are identical. In “considering the marks in their entire-ties” it seems to me that the majority and the board must have set them side-by-side and contemplated their visual differences, forgetting that confusion is caused in many cases by the frailty of human memory, not eyesight.
After writing the above, I discovered the board’s interesting unanimous opinion in Chaussures Bally Societe Anonyme v. Fritzi of California, Inc., 144 USPQ 609, wherein the same opposer prevailed in opposing the registration of “VALLI” for various items of women’s apparel, not including footwear. The board said:
“Applicant’s ‘VALLI’ and opposer’s ‘BALLY’ are virtually indistinguishable in sound and similarity in this factor alone is sufficient to support a finding of a likelihood of confusion * * [Cases cited.]
The board felt “VALLI” was sufficiently different from “LA VALLI” not to be bound by its prior decision (this case below). Considering that here the goods are the same and that in the “VALLI” case they differed, I think the board exercised better judgment in the Fritzi case than it did here.
I would reverse.