Court Opinion

ID: 9454105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:36:35.875867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:58.528289
License: Public Domain

KIRKPATRICK, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached by the majority in the present case for the reasons set out in the two dissenting opinions in Planters Nut & Chocolate Co. v. Crown Nut Co., 305 F.2d 916, 50 CCPA 1120. Viewing the symbols in their en-tireties the appellee’s mark simply bears no resemblance ■ to the appellant’s. The only thing in which any similarity can be found is in the concept of a kicking mule, plus the use of the word “kick” in the slogan which accompanies each mark. This I think is insufficient ground on which to base a finding that the applicant’s mark “so resembles a mark registered in the Patent Office * * * as to be likely * * * to cause confusion,” etc. which is the statutory requirement. The majority evidently feels that similarity of an abstract concept is not sufficient to overcome lack of resemblance and I agree.