Studio Girl-Hollywood, Inc. v. H/P Consultants, Ltd.

Customs and Patent Appeals

Studio Girl-Hollywood, Inc. v. H/P Consultants, Ltd.

453 F.2d 768, 59 C.C.P.A. 768

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedJanuary 20, 1972

DocketNo. 8628

StatusPublished

This text of 453 F.2d 768 (Studio Girl-Hollywood, Inc. v. H/P Consultants, Ltd.) 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

Studio Girl-Hollywood, Inc. v. H/P Consultants, Ltd., 453 F.2d 768, 59 C.C.P.A. 768 (ccpa 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Baldwin, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

H/P Consultants,- Ltd. filed an application¹ to register “Studio One” for a holding spray for men’s hair. The registration is opposed by Studio Girl-Hollywood, Inc., the holder of registrations of “Studio Girl” for face creams, facé powders, lipsticks, rouges, skin lotions, and nail polishés,² and for shampoos.³

There is no issue as to opposer’s prior use. Neither party has taken testimony. The board’s decision stated:

[769]*769The marks “STUDIO GIRL” and “STUDIO ONE” have in common the word “STUDIO” but it is well established that marks must be considered in their entireties. The mark “STUDIO GIRL” taken as a whole connotes a person whereas “STUDIO ONE” would be indicative of a place such as a television or radio studio. In other words, the marks create different commercial impressions. In addition there are differences in both sound and appearance between these marks.

We agree with the board, and therefore find that the mark “Studio One,” when applied to appellee’s men’s hair sprays, does not so resemble appellant’s mark “Studio Girl” as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive within the meaning of 15 USC 1052(d). Accordingly, the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board⁴ dismissing the opposition is affirmed.

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

Baldwin, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

H/P Consultants,- Ltd. filed an application¹ to register “Studio One” for a holding spray for men’s hair. The registration is opposed by Studio Girl-Hollywood, Inc., the holder of registrations of “Studio Girl” for face creams, facé powders, lipsticks, rouges, skin lotions, and nail polishés,² and for shampoos.³

There is no issue as to opposer’s prior use. Neither party has taken testimony. The board’s decision stated:

[769]*769The marks “STUDIO GIRL” and “STUDIO ONE” have in common the word “STUDIO” but it is well established that marks must be considered in their entireties. The mark “STUDIO GIRL” taken as a whole connotes a person whereas “STUDIO ONE” would be indicative of a place such as a television or radio studio. In other words, the marks create different commercial impressions. In addition there are differences in both sound and appearance between these marks.

We agree with the board, and therefore find that the mark “Studio One,” when applied to appellee’s men’s hair sprays, does not so resemble appellant’s mark “Studio Girl” as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive within the meaning of 15 USC 1052(d). Accordingly, the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board⁴ dismissing the opposition is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 F.2d 768, 59 C.C.P.A. 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/studio-girl-hollywood-inc-v-hp-consultants-ltd-ccpa-1972.