Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Goldie Haymer, Doing Business Under the Trade Name and Trade Style of Goldie Haymer Manufacturing Company

Customs and Patent Appeals

Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Goldie Haymer, Doing Business Under the Trade Name and Trade Style of Goldie Haymer Manufacturing Company

263 F.2d 348, 46 C.C.P.A. 783

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedFebruary 5, 1959

DocketPatent Appeal 6412

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 263 F.2d 348 (Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Goldie Haymer, Doing Business Under the Trade Name and Trade Style of Goldie Haymer Manufacturing 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

Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Goldie Haymer, Doing Business Under the Trade Name and Trade Style of Goldie Haymer Manufacturing Company, 263 F.2d 348, 46 C.C.P.A. 783 (ccpa 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

WORLEY, Acting Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, acting through the Assistant Commissioner, affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences dismissing an opposition by appellant to an application of appellee for registration of “Glo-Ray” as a trademark for hairdressing containing lanolin as an ingredient. The opposition was based on appellant’s ownership and use of “Glow” as a trademark for shampoos.

The case was, submitted on stipuated evidence winch shows that appellaf b,egan usce 1938‘ pellee s use of Glo-Ray _ began m 1953, thus there is no question of priority. The gole iggue .g whether “Glow” as applied to shampoo is confusingly similar t° Glo-Ray as applied to hairdressing.

Both the examiner and the Assistant Commissioner found that the differences between the marks were sufficient to avoid any likelihood of confusion when used on the goods of the respective parties.

Appellant contends that the syllable “Glo” is merely a phonetic spelling of “Glow.” However, while the hyphena-^ion of appellee s mark sets Glo apart and probably gives a suggestion of glowing, we agree with the Assistant Commissioner that the primary impression created by the mark as a whole is that of glory, or a shining ray.

Moreover, the word “Glow” as associated with preparations designed to be applied to the hair does not appear to be arbitrary, but rather suggests that a desirable result will be obtained when used. Under such circumstances words of that nature are given less weight than more arbitrary words in determining confusing similarity, and the registrant can hardly expect the same protection accorded a stronger mark. Lauritzen & Co., Inc. v. Borden Co., 44 C.C.P.A. 720, 239 F.2d 405, and cases there cited.

We have given ful1 consideration to the contentions advanced by appellant but we do not see such a similarity in sound, appearance, or meaning of the marks as to result in any likelibood of confusmn m the minds of the purchasing Public.

The decision appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

WORLEY, Acting Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, acting through the Assistant Commissioner, affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences dismissing an opposition by appellant to an application of appellee for registration of “Glo-Ray” as a trademark for hairdressing containing lanolin as an ingredient. The opposition was based on appellant’s ownership and use of “Glow” as a trademark for shampoos.

The case was, submitted on stipuated evidence winch shows that appellaf b,egan usce 1938‘ pellee s use of Glo-Ray _ began m 1953, thus there is no question of priority. The gole iggue .g whether “Glow” as applied to shampoo is confusingly similar t° Glo-Ray as applied to hairdressing.

Both the examiner and the Assistant Commissioner found that the differences between the marks were sufficient to avoid any likelihood of confusion when used on the goods of the respective parties.

Appellant contends that the syllable “Glo” is merely a phonetic spelling of “Glow.” However, while the hyphena-^ion of appellee s mark sets Glo apart and probably gives a suggestion of glowing, we agree with the Assistant Commissioner that the primary impression created by the mark as a whole is that of glory, or a shining ray.

Moreover, the word “Glow” as associated with preparations designed to be applied to the hair does not appear to be arbitrary, but rather suggests that a desirable result will be obtained when used. Under such circumstances words of that nature are given less weight than more arbitrary words in determining confusing similarity, and the registrant can hardly expect the same protection accorded a stronger mark. Lauritzen & Co., Inc. v. Borden Co., 44 C.C.P.A. 720, 239 F.2d 405, and cases there cited.

We have given ful1 consideration to the contentions advanced by appellant but we do not see such a similarity in sound, appearance, or meaning of the marks as to result in any likelibood of confusmn m the minds of the purchasing Public.

The decision appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 F.2d 348, 46 C.C.P.A. 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sears-roebuck-and-co-v-goldie-haymer-doing-business-under-the-trade-ccpa-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack