In re Ridge Tool Co.

Customs and Patent Appeals

In re Ridge Tool Co.

456 F.2d 786, 59 C.C.P.A. 917, 173 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 233, 1972 CCPA LEXIS 358

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedMarch 30, 1972

DocketNo. 8691

StatusPublished

This text of 456 F.2d 786 (In re Ridge Tool Co.) 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

In re Ridge Tool Co., 456 F.2d 786, 59 C.C.P.A. 917, 173 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 233, 1972 CCPA LEXIS 358 (ccpa 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Baldwin, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board¹ sustaining the examiner’s refusal to register appellant’s mark EJDGID for measuring tapes and folding rules. As it appears in appellant’s application,² the mark is somewhat stylized:

Registration was refused'm view of the previously registered mark BIGITAPE for measuring tape.³ The issue is whether the mark sought to be registered so resembles the previously registered mark as to be likely, when applied to applicant’s goods, to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.⁴

Appellant argues that the two marks as applied to the goods do not look or sound sufficiently alike to engender a likelihood of confusion. The board, considering the “obvious substantial similarity” between the marks, held that there would be likelihood of confusion.

The prior registration covers goods which are identical to appellant’s tape measures. These tapes clearly flow through the same channels of trade to the same consumers. Considering this factor, as well as the obvious similarities between the marks, we agree with the board that there is a likelihood of confusion. The decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

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

Baldwin, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board¹ sustaining the examiner’s refusal to register appellant’s mark EJDGID for measuring tapes and folding rules. As it appears in appellant’s application,² the mark is somewhat stylized:

Registration was refused'm view of the previously registered mark BIGITAPE for measuring tape.³ The issue is whether the mark sought to be registered so resembles the previously registered mark as to be likely, when applied to applicant’s goods, to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.⁴

Appellant argues that the two marks as applied to the goods do not look or sound sufficiently alike to engender a likelihood of confusion. The board, considering the “obvious substantial similarity” between the marks, held that there would be likelihood of confusion.

The prior registration covers goods which are identical to appellant’s tape measures. These tapes clearly flow through the same channels of trade to the same consumers. Considering this factor, as well as the obvious similarities between the marks, we agree with the board that there is a likelihood of confusion. The decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 F.2d 786, 59 C.C.P.A. 917, 173 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 233, 1972 CCPA LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ridge-tool-co-ccpa-1972.