Court Opinion

ID: 9450690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:55:31.035488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:25.451178
License: Public Domain

*218SMITH, Judge
(dissenting).
The admittedly subjective nature of the consideration we must give to the marks BALLY and LA VALLI, when applied to identical goods, surrounds resolution of the issue with considerable ■doubt. Visually, the marks are sufficiently different that confusion on that basis would not be likely. But there is more here than mere visual dissimilarity. The words sound alike, and both are arbitrary terms as applied to women’s shoes. The mark BALLY was an established mark in this field when appellee entered the market. Under these circumstances, I would .resolve doubt against the newcomer, see Polymer Corp. v. Dayco Corp., 324 F.2d 1019, 51 CCPA 794, and Coral Chemical Co. v. H. D. T. Co. Factors, 332 F.2d 841, 51 CCPA 1413, and would reverse the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.