Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corporation, Patent Appeal No. 7754.
| Citation | 153 USPQ 406,376 F.2d 324 |
| Decision Date | 27 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 7754. |
| Parties | LILLY PULITZER, INC., Appellant, v. LILLI ANN CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals |
Robert C. Garber, Harvey B. Jacobson, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Harold R. Regan, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK.*
This is an appeal from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 145 USPQ 232, sustaining appellee's opposition to appellant's application for registration of the trademark "THE LILLY" for women's dresses. The opposer is the owner of the trademark "LILLI ANN" for women's wearing apparel including dresses. There is no question that the opposer is prior in use and that the parties' goods and customers are, at least in part, the same.
The sole issue is whether the applicant's trademark so resembles that of the opposer as to be likely, when applied to the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. The board, one member dissenting, found that there would be a likelihood of confusion, and we agree.
We note that the dominant parts of the two marks are pronounced the same and look alike, that "LILLY" is a shortening of Lillian, and that it is not an infrequent practice with ladies' clothing to identify it with its designer. Hence, the reference to a feminine name could be taken by the customer as identifying the designer, and it seems likely that a customer, having read an advertisement for "LILLI ANN", might reasonably assume that she had found the advertised goods when she found them with the trademark "THE LILLY."
The applicant complains that the decision of the board unduly stresses the fact that the two marks are susceptible of the same connotation and fails to give weight to a number of third-party registrations introduced into evidence in which the dominant words are Lily, Lilly, or Lilli. In view of the obvious similarity of appearance and sound of the two marks, we think that, while the similarity of connotation was a factor in the board's decision, it was neither the principal nor the only basis for it.
All that the third-party registrations demonstrate is that their owners believe the term "LILLY" to be appropriate for a trademark for women's dresses. The question still remains whether the marks viewed as a whole are confusingly similar. The existence of third-party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Application of Clorox Co.
...Inc. v. Roux Laboratories, Inc., 442 F.2d 980, 981, 58 CCPA 1170, 1171, 169 USPQ 589 (1971); Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 325, 54 CCPA 1295, 1297, 153 USPQ 406, 407 (1967); J.C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960, 964, 52 CCPA 981, 986, 144 USPQ 435, 43......
-
Mushroom Makers, Inc. v. RG Barry Corp., 76 Civil 1589.
...26 Cf. Scarves by Vera, Inc. v. Todo Imports Ltd. (Inc.), 544 F.2d 1167, 1173 (2d Cir. 1976) (quoting Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 325, 54 CCPA 1295 (1967)). 27 Mere sales or advertising figures are inconclusive on the issue. Cf. Exquisite Form Indus., Inc. v. Exqu......
-
Springs Mills, Inc. v. Ultracashmere House, Ltd., 79 Civ. 4574 (DNE).
...use." Scarves By Vera, Inc. v. Todo Imports Ltd. (Inc.), 544 F.2d 1167, 1173 (2d Cir. 1976), quoting, Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 325 (Cust. & Pat.App.1967). Thus, the court is not to rely on these other registrations, without more, in determining the scope of 22 ......
-
Nike, Inc. v. DeRicco
......91269468 United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal ...As the Court pointed out in. Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp. , 376 F.2d. ......