Court Opinion

ID: 9467007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:35:30.192425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:06.023617
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part:
The difference between me and a full concurrence in the scholarly opinion of Judge Sam D. Johnson is not a sentence, a phrase or a word. Indeed, it is not even a single letter. What, and all, that divides us is a simple -
The opinion properly REVERSES the trial court to forbid the use of the term
TEXON
But it puts the imprimatur of law to permit the use of
*509TEX-ON
Now nearly a quarter of a century later this pricks my slumbering judicial conscience for having, in the very first week of my career, concurred in a holding that a trial Judge could properly find no likelihood of consumer confusion between loaves of bread wrapped and labelled:
DANDY DANDEE
Webb’s City, Inc. v. Bell Bakeries, 226 F.2d 700 (5th Cir. 1955)
If confession is good for the soul, as I thought by
“my self-confessing concurrence in 1960 en banc opinion, Butler v. Bazemore, 5 Cir., 1962, 303 F.2d 188, overruling my earlier 1957 effort for the panel in Bazemore v. Whittington, 5 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 943”.
United States v. Buras, 475 F.2d 1370, 1371 (5 Cir. 1972), I wish belatedly to disavow this earlier errancy by rejecting now the notion that confusion dissipates by a simple hyphen.