David Crystal, Inc. v. Estee Lauder, Inc.

Customs and Patent Appeals

David Crystal, Inc. v. Estee Lauder, Inc.

476 F.2d 1373, 177 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 461, 1973 CCPA LEXIS 378

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 1973

DocketPatent Appeal No. 8924

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 476 F.2d 1373 (David Crystal, Inc. v. Estee Lauder, Inc.) 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

David Crystal, Inc. v. Estee Lauder, Inc., 476 F.2d 1373, 177 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 461, 1973 CCPA LEXIS 378 (ccpa 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, reported at 167 USPQ 411 (1970), dismissing appellant’s opposition to appellee’s application¹ to register CRYSTAL PAVILION for cosmetic skin lotion. Appellant relied on its prior registrations2 of marks including the word CRYSTAL for ladies’ and misses’ dresses, dress ensembles, coats, suits, blouses, skirts, men’s wear, fabrics, piece goods, and the like, and alleged likelihood of confusion.

Having considered the decision of the board, all of the arguments presented by the parties, and the record before us, we affirm. We agree with the board that the marketing of a cosmetic skin cream under the mark CRYSTAL PAVILION would not suggest to purchasers that it originates from or is any way associated with the producer of DAVID CRYSTAL or CRYSTAL clothing.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, reported at 167 USPQ 411 (1970), dismissing appellant’s opposition to appellee’s application¹ to register CRYSTAL PAVILION for cosmetic skin lotion. Appellant relied on its prior registrations2 of marks including the word CRYSTAL for ladies’ and misses’ dresses, dress ensembles, coats, suits, blouses, skirts, men’s wear, fabrics, piece goods, and the like, and alleged likelihood of confusion.

Having considered the decision of the board, all of the arguments presented by the parties, and the record before us, we affirm. We agree with the board that the marketing of a cosmetic skin cream under the mark CRYSTAL PAVILION would not suggest to purchasers that it originates from or is any way associated with the producer of DAVID CRYSTAL or CRYSTAL clothing.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 F.2d 1373, 177 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 461, 1973 CCPA LEXIS 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-crystal-inc-v-estee-lauder-inc-ccpa-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack