David Crystal, Inc. v. Sharon Ray Corp.

Customs and Patent Appeals

David Crystal, Inc. v. Sharon Ray Corp.

476 F.2d 1372, 177 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 460, 1973 CCPA LEXIS 377

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 1973

DocketPatent Appeal No. 8913

StatusPublished

This text of 476 F.2d 1372 (David Crystal, Inc. v. Sharon Ray 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

David Crystal, Inc. v. Sharon Ray Corp., 476 F.2d 1372, 177 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 460, 1973 CCPA LEXIS 377 (ccpa 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, abstracted at 167 USPQ 699 (1970), dismissing appellant’s oppositions to appellee’s applications to register GOLD CRYSTAL for cosmetic preparations,¹ FIRE CRYSTAL for cosmetic preparations,² and OCEAN CRYSTAL for cosmetic preparations.³ Appellant relied on its prior registrations⁴ 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.

In view of the similarity of the issues joined by the parties in these three oppositions, the three proceedings were consolidated and moved to final hearing before the board on the same record. The board dismissed all three oppositions in one decision. The board found that in its opinion the sale of cosmetic preparations and wearing apparel under the marks here involved is not reasonably likely to cause confusion in trade as to the origin of the goods. The board found that while opposer’s name and mark DAVID CRYSTAL and the CRYSTAL marks derived therefrom have become distinctive in the apparel field, it does not follow therefrom that the distinctiveness of the CRYSTAL marks extends into the cosmetic and toiletries field. We agree.

Having considered the decision of the board, all of the arguments presented by the parties, and the record before us, we affirm.

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, abstracted at 167 USPQ 699 (1970), dismissing appellant’s oppositions to appellee’s applications to register GOLD CRYSTAL for cosmetic preparations,¹ FIRE CRYSTAL for cosmetic preparations,² and OCEAN CRYSTAL for cosmetic preparations.³ Appellant relied on its prior registrations⁴ 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.

In view of the similarity of the issues joined by the parties in these three oppositions, the three proceedings were consolidated and moved to final hearing before the board on the same record. The board dismissed all three oppositions in one decision. The board found that in its opinion the sale of cosmetic preparations and wearing apparel under the marks here involved is not reasonably likely to cause confusion in trade as to the origin of the goods. The board found that while opposer’s name and mark DAVID CRYSTAL and the CRYSTAL marks derived therefrom have become distinctive in the apparel field, it does not follow therefrom that the distinctiveness of the CRYSTAL marks extends into the cosmetic and toiletries field. We agree.

Having considered the decision of the board, all of the arguments presented by the parties, and the record before us, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 F.2d 1372, 177 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 460, 1973 CCPA LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-crystal-inc-v-sharon-ray-corp-ccpa-1973.