Long John Distilleries, Ltd., D.B.A. Long John Distilleries v. Sazerac Company, Inc., D.B.A. John Handy Company

Customs and Patent Appeals

Long John Distilleries, Ltd., D.B.A. Long John Distilleries v. Sazerac Company, Inc., D.B.A. John Handy Company

426 F.2d 1406, 57 C.C.P.A. 1286

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedJune 11, 1970

DocketPatent Appeal 8340

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 426 F.2d 1406 (Long John Distilleries, Ltd., D.B.A. Long John Distilleries v. Sazerac Company, Inc., D.B.A. John Handy Company) 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

Long John Distilleries, Ltd., D.B.A. Long John Distilleries v. Sazerac Company, Inc., D.B.A. John Handy Company, 426 F.2d 1406, 57 C.C.P.A. 1286 (ccpa 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

FISHER, Judge.

The sole issue in this opposition proceeding is whether the mark “FRIAR JOHN,” when applied to brandy, would likely result in confusion, mistake or deception to the public because of similarity to the registered 1 mark “LONG JOHN,” owned and used by appellantopposer in labeling its product, scotch whiskey. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the notice of opposition with opinion. 2

The board found that the third party registrations of record are themselves sufficient to establish that the word “John” has been so frequently used as a part of distilled beverage marks that it is incapable of indicating origin in any one source and that the substantial good will in the mark “LONG JOHN” acquired by appellant over years of use and promotion resides in the unitary mark. Further, the board was of opinion that, considered in their entireties, the differences in sound, appearance and commercial impression of the two marks are obvious and one is in no way suggestive of the other.

We agree with, approve and adopt the opinion of the board, and its decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Reg. No. 577,305 issued July 14, 1953 and Reg.No.765,225, issued Feb. 18, 1964.

2

. Abstracted at 156 USPQ 713.

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

FISHER, Judge.

The sole issue in this opposition proceeding is whether the mark “FRIAR JOHN,” when applied to brandy, would likely result in confusion, mistake or deception to the public because of similarity to the registered 1 mark “LONG JOHN,” owned and used by appellantopposer in labeling its product, scotch whiskey. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the notice of opposition with opinion. 2

The board found that the third party registrations of record are themselves sufficient to establish that the word “John” has been so frequently used as a part of distilled beverage marks that it is incapable of indicating origin in any one source and that the substantial good will in the mark “LONG JOHN” acquired by appellant over years of use and promotion resides in the unitary mark. Further, the board was of opinion that, considered in their entireties, the differences in sound, appearance and commercial impression of the two marks are obvious and one is in no way suggestive of the other.

We agree with, approve and adopt the opinion of the board, and its decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Reg. No. 577,305 issued July 14, 1953 and Reg.No.765,225, issued Feb. 18, 1964.

2

. Abstracted at 156 USPQ 713.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 F.2d 1406, 57 C.C.P.A. 1286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-john-distilleries-ltd-dba-long-john-distilleries-v-sazerac-ccpa-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack