David Crystal, Inc. v. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc.

Customs and Patent Appeals

David Crystal, Inc. v. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc.

476 F.2d 1374, 177 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 461, 1973 CCPA LEXIS 379

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 1973

DocketPatent Appeal No. 8943

StatusPublished

This text of 476 F.2d 1374 (David Crystal, Inc. v. Helene Curtis Industries, 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. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., 476 F.2d 1374, 177 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 461, 1973 CCPA LEXIS 379 (ccpa 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, reported at 168 USPQ 124 (1970), dismissing appellant’s opposition to appellee’s application¹ to register ICE CRYSTALS for bath oil. Appellant relied on its prior registrations² of trademarks 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 respective marks neither look nor sound alike, and we agree that there is no reasonable likelihood of confusion or mistake.

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 168 USPQ 124 (1970), dismissing appellant’s opposition to appellee’s application¹ to register ICE CRYSTALS for bath oil. Appellant relied on its prior registrations² of trademarks 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 respective marks neither look nor sound alike, and we agree that there is no reasonable likelihood of confusion or mistake.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 F.2d 1374, 177 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 461, 1973 CCPA LEXIS 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-crystal-inc-v-helene-curtis-industries-inc-ccpa-1973.