Endo Laboratories, Inc. v. "Fo-We" Forschungs-Und Verwertungs-Anstalt

Customs and Patent Appeals

Endo Laboratories, Inc. v. "Fo-We" Forschungs-Und Verwertungs-Anstalt

353 F.2d 247

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedDecember 9, 1965

DocketPatent Appeal No. 7503

StatusPublished

This text of 353 F.2d 247 (Endo Laboratories, Inc. v. "Fo-We" Forschungs-Und Verwertungs-Anstalt) 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

Endo Laboratories, Inc. v. "Fo-We" Forschungs-Und Verwertungs-Anstalt, 353 F.2d 247 (ccpa 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

KIRKPATRICK, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing an opposition filed by the appellant, Endo Laboratories, Inc., to the appellee's application for registration of a trademark. The opposition is based upon the opposer’s prior use. The marks involved in the case are COUMADIN for the opposer and DIOCOUMINE for the applicant. The goods of both parties are anti-coagulants which are derived in part from the drug coumarin and are competitive in character.

We agree with the board that persons informed in such matters would probably recognize that the goods to which the marks were applied were derivatives of coumarin, but that fact would not be likely to give rise to confusion because, when considered in their entireties, the marks neither look nor sound alike.

The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

KIRKPATRICK, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing an opposition filed by the appellant, Endo Laboratories, Inc., to the appellee's application for registration of a trademark. The opposition is based upon the opposer’s prior use. The marks involved in the case are COUMADIN for the opposer and DIOCOUMINE for the applicant. The goods of both parties are anti-coagulants which are derived in part from the drug coumarin and are competitive in character.

We agree with the board that persons informed in such matters would probably recognize that the goods to which the marks were applied were derivatives of coumarin, but that fact would not be likely to give rise to confusion because, when considered in their entireties, the marks neither look nor sound alike.

The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 F.2d 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/endo-laboratories-inc-v-fo-we-forschungs-und-verwertungs-anstalt-ccpa-1965.