Planters Nut & Chocolate Co. v. Crown Nut Co.
Decision Date | 15 August 1962 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 6812. |
Citation | 305 F.2d 916,134 USPQ 504 |
Parties | PLANTERS NUT & CHOCOLATE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CROWN NUT COMPANY, Inc., Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Mason, Fenwick & Lawrence, Boynton P. Livingston, Washington, D. C. (G. Cabell Busick, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
Robert K. Youtie, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK.*
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (128 USPQ 345) dismissing the opposition of Planters Nut & Chocolate Company to the registration of a design mark, in the form of an animated peanut, by Crown Nut Company, Inc., application Ser. No. 5,979, filed April 9, 1956, Opposition No. 37,911. Applicant claims use only since February 17, 1953, on the goods named in the application, "Nuts, shelled and unshelled, and salted and unsalted." It is a relative newcomer.
No testimony was taken. The parties stipulated certain facts and opposer introduced with its stipulation 36 exhibits showing the long use and extensive advertising of its marks.
Appellant-opposer relies on its prior use, since 1916, of a trademark symbol consisting of a humanized peanut on the same goods as those named by applicant. Inter alia, it has four registrations of the mark. No. 121,818, May 28, 1918, for "salted peanuts and peanut bars," is a male humanized unshelled peanut having a stovepipe hat on the top, a face on the upper part of the peanut, spindly black arms and legs and a cane held in one outstretched hand with its tip resting on the ground. Depending on how one considers the figure, the peanut shell is either the torso of the man or a long beard which conceals the torso. A monocle with a dependent cord is worn in one eye and the figure wears spats. No. 508,052 of March 29, 1949,1 and No. 538,882 of March 6, 1951,2 show substantially the same humanized figure having generally the same appearance as the first registration except that the nut shell is clearly a torso and not a beard, the posture is slightly changed and reversed, the hat is a dress hat lowered in the crown and bears the words "MR. PEANUT" on its band. No. 553,895 of January 22, 1952,3 shows a Spanish version of Mr. Peanut changed from the foregoing in style by the substitution of a Spanish type low-crowned hat and the addition of a striped shawl carried on the left arm of the figure hanging to its knees.
These variant forms of appellant's Mr. Peanut have been used and advertised as set forth in the following paragraph of the stipulation:
The specimens of advertising in the exhibits show that this Mr. Peanut character is featured both on packages and in advertisements in different postures and engaging in various activities. He appears on billboards and in three-dimensional form in giant size on the rooftops of stores and factories.
The August 1950 issue of "Modern Packaging" magazine,4 in an article entitled "Planters Peanuts," "twentieth of a series," shows that Mr. Peanut has been on an animated Times Square spectacular and in more than human size has been on parade floats and riding on the Atlantic City boardwalk. The article states:
Under an illustration of premiums is the caption:
* * *"
There have been Mr. Peanut penny banks, salt and pepper shakers, and drinking mugs too, in which the form of Mr. Peanut has varied. As a pencil top he is a torso without legs. The drinking mugs are made only from his head and hat. On the cover of a painting book he is running between two children. In a New Year's advertisement he has even appeared as a naked babe. (Stip. Ex. No. 13.) Modern Packaging said:
Emphasis ours.
Appellee's brief thus describes the mark it seeks to register:
The "generic peanut configuration" of appellee's mark above referred to is that of a common, unshelled, double-kernel peanut. But only the configuration of the head is "generic." The crown sits on the top of it and it is made into a caricature of a human face by placing bold features centrally on the peanut shell so that the lower end thereof is the chin. The mark is copied in the board's published opinion as is one of appellant's registered marks.
It should be made clear at the outset that appellee's total figure is not a "generic" symbol, free to all to use. The picture of a peanut, shelled or unshelled, would be such a symbol — an illustration of the goods themselves — and would be "generic" in the sense in which that term is used in trademark law, meaning purely descriptive of the goods involved, their class, or a characteristic thereof. Vandenberg, Trademark Law and Procedure, pages 2, 194. Appellee is clearly not attempting to register such a picture. What we have before us is a symbol which is not intended to show the goods but rather their origin and it has been produced in the form of a little man, having as a part of his body, and being the major feature of the mark, a double-kernel, unshelled peanut, the same type of unshelled peanut which is the major feature of opposer's marks.
With respect to the words "Fit For A King," referred to by appellee as "prominently printed," they are, in fact, relatively inconspicuous, when the mark is viewed as a whole, and on one of the specimen labels submitted to this court they do not appear at all. We do not deem them to be a significant part of the mark for the purposes of this case. Thus appellee's mark must be regarded simply as the above-described symbol in the form of a humanized peanut.
The only issue is likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception under section 2(d) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1052(d) ). The board found that opposer's mark had become well-known in the trade and to the general public as an indication of origin for opposer's products but nevertheless concluded "that the marks of the parties are distinctly different in every material respect and that purchasers would not be likely to attribute products sold thereunder to a single source." (Emphasis ours.) We are unable to agree either with the premise or the conclusion.
In our opinion, formed from observation, the marks resemble each other in many material respects. Each is a symbol in the form of a little man based upon an unshelled, two-kernel peanut. Each is in standing position. Each has something on its head, a hat of one kind or another, or a crown. Each has human features on the shell of the peanut. In each mark, one hand is holding something, a cane or a mace, and the other hand is empty. Each symbol is basically a male version of a "humanized" two-kernel unshelled peanut — the same kind of nut, not different kinds of nuts. They are not different kinds of animations, as, for example, animal, insect or bird forms of a peanut.
Although the board found that appellant's "humanized peanut * * * has become well known in the trade and to the general public as an indication of origin for opposer's products" (our emphasis), the board appears to have felt that it was necessary to disregard the basic and obvious similarities between the marks and consider only their differences, in considering likelihood of confusion, because "a representation of a peanut is obviously descriptive of peanuts and products derived from peanuts." From this it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oleg Cassini, Inc. v. Cassini Tailors, Inc., Civ. No. A-90-CA-24.
...personal name). Accord Nina Ricci S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enterprises Inc., 889 F.2d 1070 (Fed.Cir.1989); Planter's Nut & Chocolate Co. v. Crown Nut Co., 50 CCPA 1120, 305 F.2d 916 (1962). 3. Similarity of Products and With respect to the third and fourth of the above-mentioned tests, courts rep......
-
Allergan, Inc. v. Gems Style Inc.
... ... F.2d 1070, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting ... Planters Nut & Chocolate Co. v. Crown Nut Co., ... 305 F.2d 916, 134 U.S.P.Q. 504 (CCPA 1962)) ... ...
-
Match Group, LLC v. Shahin
... ... 1070, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1901, 1904 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting ... Planters Nut & Choc. Co. v. Crown Nut Co., 305 ... F.2d 916, 134 U.S.P.Q. 504, 511 (CCPA 1962)) ... ...
-
American Express Marketing & Development Corp. v. Vo
... ... , 748 F.2d 669, 223 U.S.P.Q. 1281, ... 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (quoting Planters Nut & ... Chocolate Co. v. Crown Nut Co., Inc. , 305 F.2d 916, 134 ... U.S.P.Q. 504, ... ...
-
A FRAGILITY THEORY OF TRADEMARK FUNCTIONALITY.
...MR. PEANUT, Registration No. 4,071,025; MR. PEANUT, Registration No. 2,366,818. (262) Planters Nut & Chocolate Co. v. Crown Nut Co., 305 F.2d 916, 919 (C.C.P.A. (263) See generally Lawrence Lessig, Copyright's First Amendment, 48 UCLA L. REV. 1057,1065-69 (2001) (discussing the Sonny Bo......
-
BALANCING MICKEY MOUSE AND THE MUTANT COPYRIGHT: TO COPYRIGHT A TRADEMARK OR TO TRADEMARK A COPYRIGHT, THAT IS THE QUESTION.
...Talking Pictures, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 196, 197 (S.D.N.Y. 1934). (23.) Planters Nut & Chocolate Company v. Crown Nut Company, Inc., 305 F.2d 916, (C.C.P.A (24.) Frederick Warne & Co., Inc. v. Book Sales Inc., 481 F. Supp. 1191, 1196 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). (25.) Id. at 1194. (26.) Id. at 1196.......