Court Opinion

ID: 9481368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:17:00.076734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:16.329431
License: Public Domain

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
The question requiring decision is whether Van Dyne-Crotty, registrant of the mark “CLOTHES THAT WORK”, is entitled to the earlier dates of use of “CLOTHES THAT WORK. FOR THE WORK YOU DO”, a mark purchased from Horace Small Manufacturing Company, who had been using it since 1974.
I can not agree with the panel majority that the marks are not “legal equivalents” based on their visual and oral appearance and their use with similar goods. In the ordinary environment where consumers see and hear the slogans of trade, there is no significant difference between CLOTHES THAT WORK, the mark used by Van Dyne-Crotty, and CLOTHES THAT WORK with the added clause FOR THE *1161WORK YOU DO. The appended clause does not change the commercial impression of CLOTHES THAT WORK; it is simply an explanation, a reinforcement — as is often seen in commercial usage. The appended clause does not convert CLOTHES THAT WORK into a different mark, as the panel majority holds.
However, I believe that the facts do not support attributing to Van Dyne-Crotty the dates of use by Horace Small. On this basis I reach the same result as does the panel majority, and thus I concur in the judgment.