House of Worsted-Tex, Inc. v. Enro Shirt Company, Inc.

284 F.2d 530, 48 C.C.P.A. 758
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedDecember 8, 1960
DocketPatent Appeal 6612
StatusPublished

This text of 284 F.2d 530 (House of Worsted-Tex, Inc. v. Enro Shirt Company, 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
House of Worsted-Tex, Inc. v. Enro Shirt Company, Inc., 284 F.2d 530, 48 C.C.P.A. 758 (ccpa 1960).

Opinion

MARTIN, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences which dismissed the opposition of appellant, House of Worsted-Tex, Inc., to the registration of the trademark “Ivycasual” for “Dress, Negligee and Sport Shirts and Pajamas for Men and Boys.”

Applicant, Enro Shirt Company, Inc., a Kentucky corporation located in Louisville, Kentucky, filed application Ser. No. 689,558 on June 15, 1955, claiming use of “Ivycasual” from May 1, 1955, the mark was published on March 27, 1956, and opposition was filed on April 13, 1956. Applicant contested the opposition below and prevailed but in this court it has neither appeared nor filed a brief.

Opposer took the testimony of one witness at the taking of whose testimony the applicant was, by choice, not represented. The record made by the opposer shows that it relies on a trademark registration, No. 371,524, of “Ivy League Model,” the words being surrounded by a rectangular line border, and apparently on claimed exclusive rights in the clothing field of the simple term “Ivy League.”

We are this day deciding two other appeals by the same opposer based on the same alleged rights, appeals Nos. 6610 and 6611, against Superba Cravats, Inc., 284 F.2d 528, wherein we have set forth reasons for affirming the dismissal of the oppositions, which are as applicable to the instant case as they are in those appeals.

For the reasons stated in the other appeals, we are of the opinion that there is no likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception of purchasers if applicant’s mark “Ivycasual” is used on the goods above mentioned as to preclude registration.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

House of Worsted-Tex, Inc. v. Superba Cravats, Inc.
284 F.2d 528 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 F.2d 530, 48 C.C.P.A. 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/house-of-worsted-tex-inc-v-enro-shirt-company-inc-ccpa-1960.