Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Purex Corp.

Customs and Patent Appeals

Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Purex Corp.

451 F.2d 1401, 59 C.C.P.A. 741

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedDecember 23, 1971

DocketNo. 8611

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 451 F.2d 1401 (Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Purex Corp.) 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

Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Purex Corp., 451 F.2d 1401, 59 C.C.P.A. 741 (ccpa 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Kich, Judge.

This appeal¹ is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 161 USPQ 311 (1969), sustaining appellee’s opposition to the registration of appellant’s application serial No. 211,797, filed February 11,1965. We affirm.

The board’s opinion, including reproductions of the marks involved, has been published in its entirety, and we have little to add to it. Appellant concedes appellee’s priority, and that the goods of the parties (household bleach, so far as relevant) “are in part nearly identical * * Thus the only question is whether, as applied to such goods, the marks so nearly resemble each other as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake.

Both marks include as prominent parts thereof uplifted left hands and forearms in the identical supporting posture. Obviously, there are differences in the two marks. Appellant’s mark is of a mas[742]*742culine Rand and forearm, whereas appellee’s mark is of a feminine hand and forearm, and there is a heavy, allegedly masculine bracelet on the forearm in appellant’s mark but no bracelet on the forearm in appellee’s mark. There is also an octagon imprinted with the word PUREX supported by the hand in appellee’s mark but no such element in appellant’s mark as depicted in its application? However, we agree with the board that “an average purchaser² [at least of low-cost, shelf goods such as those involved here] is not likely to remember symbol marks in their specific details,” cf. Columbian Steel Tank Co. v. Union Tank and Supply Co., 47 CCPA 898, 277 F. 2d 192, 125 USPQ 406 (1960), and we also agree that,' in view of the identity of posture of the hands in the parties’ marks and of the absence of reason for the purchasing public to suppose that the parties’ goods actually emanate from different sources, “purchasers thereof might well assume that the involved products all come from a common source.”

Since we find no error in the board’s reasoning or decision after full consideration of the arguments, the decision of the board is affirmed.

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

Kich, Judge.

This appeal¹ is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 161 USPQ 311 (1969), sustaining appellee’s opposition to the registration of appellant’s application serial No. 211,797, filed February 11,1965. We affirm.

The board’s opinion, including reproductions of the marks involved, has been published in its entirety, and we have little to add to it. Appellant concedes appellee’s priority, and that the goods of the parties (household bleach, so far as relevant) “are in part nearly identical * * Thus the only question is whether, as applied to such goods, the marks so nearly resemble each other as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake.

Both marks include as prominent parts thereof uplifted left hands and forearms in the identical supporting posture. Obviously, there are differences in the two marks. Appellant’s mark is of a mas[742]*742culine Rand and forearm, whereas appellee’s mark is of a feminine hand and forearm, and there is a heavy, allegedly masculine bracelet on the forearm in appellant’s mark but no bracelet on the forearm in appellee’s mark. There is also an octagon imprinted with the word PUREX supported by the hand in appellee’s mark but no such element in appellant’s mark as depicted in its application? However, we agree with the board that “an average purchaser² [at least of low-cost, shelf goods such as those involved here] is not likely to remember symbol marks in their specific details,” cf. Columbian Steel Tank Co. v. Union Tank and Supply Co., 47 CCPA 898, 277 F. 2d 192, 125 USPQ 406 (1960), and we also agree that,' in view of the identity of posture of the hands in the parties’ marks and of the absence of reason for the purchasing public to suppose that the parties’ goods actually emanate from different sources, “purchasers thereof might well assume that the involved products all come from a common source.”

Since we find no error in the board’s reasoning or decision after full consideration of the arguments, the decision of the board is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 F.2d 1401, 59 C.C.P.A. 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colgate-palmolive-co-v-purex-corp-ccpa-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack