Court Opinion

ID: 9641798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:40:42.424824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:39.578982
License: Public Domain

LENROOT, Associate Judge
(specially concurring).
I agree to the conclusion reached in this case, but I cannot agree with the statements in the majority opinion that the question of confusing similarity of the respective marks is a close one, or that there might be much difference of opinion upon this question among reasonable minds. We have held that appellant’s mark “Lux” is a unique, arbitrary trade-mark. Lever Bros Co. v. Riodela Chemical Co., 41 F.2d 408, 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1272.
Appellee has appropriated this mark in its entirety and has merely placed before it a part of its corporate name phonetically spelled. Such an appropriation in my mind should not be considered as presenting a close question of confusing similarity of the respective marks, for it is clear to me that the word “Lux” is the dominating portion of appellee’s mark and therefore it should be held that, without question, the marks in issue are confusingly similar.
HATFIELD, Associate Judge, concurs in this opinion.