Application of the Belgrade Shoe Company

Customs and Patent Appeals

Application of the Belgrade Shoe Company

411 F.2d 1352, 56 C.C.P.A. 1298

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedJuly 3, 1969

DocketPatent Appeal 8103

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 411 F.2d 1352 (Application of the Belgrade Shoe Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Application of the Belgrade Shoe Company, 411 F.2d 1352, 56 C.C.P.A. 1298 (ccpa 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

BALDWIN, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision 1 of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rendered October 28, 1966 rejecting the application 2 of Belgrade Shoe Company for registration of its trademark COL“EE JUN S” as applied to women’s and girls’ shoes on the Principal Register. The examiner’s refusal is under section 2(d) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)), based on the registered mark COLLEGI-ENNE 3 as applied to shoes of leather, rubber, fabric and combinations, girls’ and junior girls’ hats, coats, suits, dresses, sweaters, skirts, and blouses.

The basis of rejection is that the appellant’s mark so closely resembles the registered mark in sound and in meaning as to create likelihood of confusion, mis *1353 take, or deception when used on the identical and closely related goods.

The appellant acknowledges that “there is no correct pronunciation of a trademark.” We think that one is very likely to pronounce “Collegienne” as if it were spelled “Colleejen” or “Colleejun.” Thus, in sound, the appellant’s mark differs from the registered mark primarily in that the former is the plural form of the latter, which we feel does not amount to a material difference in a trademark sense. Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 44 CCPA 1019 (1957). We feel that the two very similar marks, when applied to the same goods, would create a likelihood of confusion.

The appellant has argued that third party registrations in the record would indicate the reference registration is a “weak” mark and therefore “less likely to be confused.” The question still remains whether the marks viewed as a whole create a likelihood of confusion. Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 54 CCPA 1295 (1967). Third party registrations have very little weight on the issue.

The decision of the board is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Summarized at 152 USPQ 836.

2

. Serial No. 174,488, filed August 6, 1963.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BALDWIN, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision 1 of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rendered October 28, 1966 rejecting the application 2 of Belgrade Shoe Company for registration of its trademark COL“EE JUN S” as applied to women’s and girls’ shoes on the Principal Register. The examiner’s refusal is under section 2(d) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)), based on the registered mark COLLEGI-ENNE 3 as applied to shoes of leather, rubber, fabric and combinations, girls’ and junior girls’ hats, coats, suits, dresses, sweaters, skirts, and blouses.

The basis of rejection is that the appellant’s mark so closely resembles the registered mark in sound and in meaning as to create likelihood of confusion, mis *1353 take, or deception when used on the identical and closely related goods.

The appellant acknowledges that “there is no correct pronunciation of a trademark.” We think that one is very likely to pronounce “Collegienne” as if it were spelled “Colleejen” or “Colleejun.” Thus, in sound, the appellant’s mark differs from the registered mark primarily in that the former is the plural form of the latter, which we feel does not amount to a material difference in a trademark sense. Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 44 CCPA 1019 (1957). We feel that the two very similar marks, when applied to the same goods, would create a likelihood of confusion.

The appellant has argued that third party registrations in the record would indicate the reference registration is a “weak” mark and therefore “less likely to be confused.” The question still remains whether the marks viewed as a whole create a likelihood of confusion. Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 54 CCPA 1295 (1967). Third party registrations have very little weight on the issue.

The decision of the board is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Summarized at 152 USPQ 836.

2

. Serial No. 174,488, filed August 6, 1963.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 F.2d 1352, 56 C.C.P.A. 1298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/application-of-the-belgrade-shoe-company-ccpa-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack