Court Opinion

ID: 9448445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:36:24.638854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:26.327968
License: Public Domain

*349SMITH, Judge.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (125 USPQ 247) sustained the opposition instituted by appellee as op-poser against appellant as applicant to register its mark “REDI-SET” for “cutting and welding outfits.” (Application Serial No. 41,427 filed November 27, 1957.) The opposition was predicated on opposer’s prior registration No. 612,985 issued September 27, 1955 on its mark “Redi-Are” for “welding machines,” and the alleged likelihood of confusion or mistake or deception of purchasers by reason of applicant’s use of its mark on its goods. Applicant alleges first use of its mark on July 25, 1957.
The single issue presented here is whether applicant’s mark “REDI-SET” when applied to applicant’s goods is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception of purchasers because of its similarity to opposer’s registered mark “RediArc.”
While there are technical differences in the specific goods on which the parties use their respective marks, we do not consider these differences to be of significance here. As was stated in Hollywood Water Heater Co. v. Hollymatic Corp., 274 F.2d 679, 47 CCPA 782, “Section 2 (d) of the Trademark Act of 1946 and the unquestioned weight of modern authority in this field does not require a finding of confusing similarity of goods as a basis for sustaining a trademark opposition * * &»
The issue here must be determined primarily by a comparison of the marks in issue. Considered as wholes, the only similarity in sound and meaning of the marks is in the common use of the prefix “Redi.” In appearance they are similar in that both are hyphenated compound words with each suffix comprising a three letter word. While in a proper case the prefix “Redi” might be shown to possess distinctiveness as an indicator of source or origin of the goods to which it is applied, the present record does not afford us sufficient evidence of such distinctiveness. Instead, the prefix “Redi” is here used in both marks for its descriptive connotation.1 *****It is similarly shown in the fifteen third party registrations of record 2 for various goods. These registrations are, therefore, some evidence of the lack of distinctiveness per se of the prefix “Redi” and hence of its inability to here function as an indicator of source or origin of the goods. Shoe Corporation of America v. The Juvenile Shoe Corporation of America, 266 F.2d 793, 46 CCPA 868.
A non-distinctive prefix such as “redi” when combined with other words or syllables may acquire with such other words or syllables, sufficient distinctiveness to serve as a trademark indicating the source of origin of the goods on which it is used. However, the words “are” and “set” which opposer and applicant use respectively with the common prefix “redi” are descriptive of the goods, i. e., *350the arc drawn by opposer’s welder and the set of equipment which applicant supplies as its welding apparatus. Such distinctiveness as is here present thus resides only in the combined words as unitary marks which must be compared in their entireties. Shoe Corporation of America v. The Juvenile Shoe Corporation of America, supra; Vita-Var Corporation v. Galvicon Corporation, 284 F.2d 953, 48 CCPA 771; E. L. Bruce Company v. American Termicide Co., 285 F.2d 462, 48 CCPA 762.
Thus, comparing the entire marks,'it is our opinion that they differ so in sound, meaning and appearance that there is no likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception of purchasers arising by reason of the common use of the non-distinetive prefix “redi” which on the present record is shown to be incapable per se of indicating source or origin of the goods on which it is used.
The marks in issue here are similar only insofar as both use the prefix Redi. Opposer’s record here fails to establish facts to support a finding that such prefix has significance as an indicator of the source or origin of the goods on which it was applied. The term “Redi” as used by opposer and by applicant is used in the same sense as it is used in several of the third party registrations of record as descriptive of the availability of the goods for immediate use. As such it is descriptive of a property of the goods here in issue. The mere fact that opposer had used its mark “Redi-Arc” on its goods prior to applicant’s use of its mark “REDI-SET” on its goods is not sufficient to establish that the prefix “Redi” had acquired such trademark significance that opposer was entitled to preclude registration of a mark by another merely because it too used the common descriptive prefix “Redi.” We think, therefore, that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board was in error in finding on the present record that the prefix “Redi,” in effect had “trademark significance.”
This court in a long line of decisions has refused to accord any great weight to terms such as the prefix “Redi” in determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See: The May Department Stores Co. v. Schloss Bros. & Co., Inc., 234 F.2d 879, 43 CCPA 980, and cases.there cited.
Where the only similarity of the marks is found in a common prefix which has been recognized for its descriptive connotation rather than as an indicator of source or origin of the goods on which it is used, it is insufficient for an opposer, as here, to prove merely a prior use thereof. It is essential in such a situation that opposer establish facts from which a determination can be made that such descriptive and common connotations of such prefix are subordinate to its acceptance as an indicator that opposer was the source of the goods on which the mark was applied.
This situation which prevails on the record here is similar to that which prevailed in Eastern Wine Corp. v. Winslow-Warren, Ltd., 137 F.2d 955 (C.C.A. 2), cert. den. 320 U.S. 758, 64 S.Ct. 65, 88 L. Ed. 452, where the court in holding that the mark “Chateau Montay” did not infringe on the mark “Chateau Martin” said at page 959 of 137 F.2d:
“Here the plaintiff chose to build its business around the use of a name ‘Chateau’ which was previously in common use in advertising wines. It took the risk that competitors, old and new, would also use that common name. * * * Plaintiff, therefore, could not and did not pre-empt every use of ‘Chateau’ * *
Where, as here, the sole point of similarity of the marks is found in the common portions thereof which are descriptive of the goods or of some property thereof, such common portions, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, must be considered to indicate the nature of the goods rather than the source of the goods. It is the likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception of -purchasers as to the source of the goods on which applicant’s mark is used which is recognized by the Lanham Act as a basis for refusing regis*351tration under section 2(d). We are unwilling on the present record to predicate such likelihood on the tenuous proposition advanced by opposer that the marks in issue both utilize a term of common descriptive connotation such as “Redi,” which has not been shown to have been used in either mark in other than its common descriptive sense.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is reversed.
Reversed.
WORLEY, Chief Judge, and MARTIN, Judge, concur in result only.

. The prefix “Redi” is but a phonetic spelling of the word “Ready” which Webster’s New International Dictionary defines as:
“ * * * 2. Fitted, arranged, or placed, for immediate use; * * *.
* * * * *
“7. Offering itself at once; immediately at band; opportune; available; bandy; * *

. The following third party registrations appear in the record:
REDI HEET — 218,048
REDIFLUXED — 524,179
REDI-FLO — 600,162
Redi Mixer — 611,716
Redi-Baker — 614,283
Redi-flo — 626,836
REDI-FLOW — 627,752
Redi-Jet —- 628,853
REDI BREEZE — 636,406
REDI FRY — 647,037
— 649,233 REDI POP
— 665,527 REDI-FLAME
— 668,941 Redimix
Redi-Vac — 671,775
REDISOL — 672,736