Wincharger Corporation v. Wiancko Engineering Company

301 F.2d 927, 49 C.C.P.A. 1121

• Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
• Decided: July 11, 1962
• Docket: Patent Appeal 6754
• Status: Published

Opinions

WORLEY, Chief Judge.

Appellee seeks registration, through two applications, of the mark “WIANCKO” on a twisted tube design for certain goods including electrical equipment.¹ In both cases appellant opposed registration on its prior use and registrations of “WINCO” for electrical equipment.² The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, dismissed both oppositions, 126 USPQ 211, holding that the differences between the marks are “sufficient to obviate any likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception of purchasers.”

The sole issue here, as below, is whether appellee’s mark so resembles appellant’s mark “WINCO” as to be likely, when applied to appellee’s goods to cause confusion or mistake or deceive purchasers within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act (Trade-Mark Act of 1946), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1052(d).

Evidence on behalf of appellant shows continuous use of the mark “WINCO” on various items including electrical power supply equipment since 1941. It shows sales in excess of thirty million dollars from 1951 through 1958, and advertising expenditures of over five hundred thousand dollars on “WINCO” products since 1951.

Appellee, Wiancko Engineering Company, and its predecessors, have been marketing products falling within the designation of goods in their applications for registration since 1947. The products were identified by the mark “WIANCKO” alone until 1953, but since then by “WIANCKO” in association with a twisted tube design. Sales of the products have been substantial and supported by appreciable advertising.

The record shows “WINCO” was derived from appellant’s corporate name, Wincharger Corporation, and “WIANCKO” is the surname of appellee’s predecessor, who is now its president. The board found certain distinctions between various products of the parties, but also found that appellee’s broad designation of goods as power supplies “comprehends static and transistorized power equipment of the character sold by opposer.”

Appellant argues here that the board committed reversible error in dismissing the opposition, specifically pointing out the similarities in sound and spelling of the competing marks. While we appreciate those similarities, we are of the opinion they are sufficiently outweighed by the dissimilarities as to allow registration of the mark applied for.

Finding no error in the decision of the board, we affirm the decision.

Affirmed.

1 . In application Serial No. 24,890, involved in Opposition No. 38,517, registration of the mark is sought for oscillator units, automatic frequency standardizing units, electronic range and balance control units, electrical filter units attenuator units, amplifiers, demodulator units, combined amplifier and demodulator units, instrument cabinets and tables, especially adapted for use in data measuring systems; electronic commutators and electro-mechanical commutators especially adapted for use in telemetering systems; force gauges, pressure sensing devices, accelerometers and pressure calibration units; digital computers, analog cornputers, counter registers and other data measuring systems; frequency multiplier units; peak voltage indicators, bridge circuit units; and oscillograph patch panels, in class 26.

In application Serial No. 24,889, involved in Opposition No. 38,526, registration is sought for power supplies, in class 21.

2 . The registrations relied on by appellant are:

(1) No. 397,887, issued September 29, 1942, for electrical dynamotors, generators, converters and motors;

(2) No. 541,377, issued April 24, 1951, for wind-driven power apparatus and parts thereof, particularly wind-driven electric current generator apparatus and parts thereof;

(3) No. 586,217, issued March 2, 1954, for engine-driven power apparatus and parts thereof, particularly engine-driven electric current generator apparatus and parts thereof; and

(4) No. 671,116, issued December 16, 1958, for dynamo-electric machines, particularly motors, generators, dynamotors, inverters, and converters; prime-mover-driven electric generators, particularly engine-generator combinations and starter-control units therefor; prime-mover controls including engine idling-control units; electric power supplies; wind-electric ' equipment, particularly wind-driven generator apparatus and components thereof, and parts of any of the foregoing.