APPLICATION OF BELGRADE SHOE COMPANY

Decision Date03 July 1969
Docket NumberPatent Appeal No. 8103.
Citation162 USPQ 227,411 F.2d 1352
PartiesApplication of the BELGRADE SHOE COMPANY.
CourtU.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

M. Arthur Auslander, Auslander & Thomas, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellant.

Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D. C., of counsel.

Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges.

BALDWIN, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision1 of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rendered October 28, 1966 rejecting the application2 of Belgrade Shoe Company for registration of its trademark COL"EEJUNS" as applied to women's and girls' shoes on the Principal Register. The examiner's refusal is under section 2(d) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)), based on the registered mark COLLEGIENNE3 as applied to shoes of leather, rubber, fabric and combinations, girls' and junior girls' hats, coats, suits, dresses, sweaters, skirts, and blouses.

The basis of rejection is that the appellant's mark so closely resembles the registered mark in sound and in meaning as to create likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception when used on the identical and closely related goods.

The appellant acknowledges that "there is no correct pronunciation of a trademark." We think that one is very likely to pronounce "Collegienne" as if it were spelled "Colleejen" or "Colleejun." Thus, in sound, the appellant's mark differs from the registered mark primarily in that the former is the plural form of the latter, which we feel does not amount to a material difference in a trademark sense. Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 44 CCPA 1019 (1957). We feel that the two very similar marks, when applied to the same goods, would create a likelihood of confusion.

The appellant has argued that third party registrations in the record would indicate the reference registration is a "weak" mark and therefore "less likely to be confused." The question still remains whether the marks viewed as a whole create a likelihood of confusion. Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 54 CCPA 1295 (1967). Third party registrations have very little weight on the issue.

The decision of the board is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1 Summarized at 152 USPQ 836.

2 Serial No. 174,488, filed August 6, 1963.

3 Registration No. 196,993, issued April 7, 1925, renewed April 7, 1945, and again according to the board opinion.

To continue reading

Request your trial
94 cases
  • Application of Clorox Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)
    • June 30, 1978
    ...Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960, 964, 52 CCPA 981, 986, 144 USPQ 435, 439 (1965); cf. In re Belgrade Shoe Co., 56 CCPA 1298, 1299-300, 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227 (1969); In re Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., 305 F.2d 492, 494-95, 49 CCPA 1367, 1371-72, 134 USPQ 501, 503-04 ......
  • In re Cordua Rests., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • May 13, 2016
    ...be evaluated individually, pluralization commonly does not alter the meaning of a mark. See In re Belgrade Shoe Co., 56 C.C.P.A. 1298, 411 F.2d 1352, 1353 (1969) ; Wilson v. Delaunay, 44 C.C.P.A. 1019, 245 F.2d 877, 878 (1957). Since “churrascos” is an English-language term, there is nothin......
  • Ultimate Nutrition, Inc. v. Wacker Chemie AG
    • United States
    • Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
    • June 29, 2020
    ... ... (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Belgrade Shoe Co. , 411 F.2d ... 1352, 162 U.S.P.Q. 227, 227 (CCPA 1969). In ... Applicant's application and Opposer's pleaded ... registration. See Stone Lion Capital ... 62 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1004 ("whether a single company sells ... the goods and services of both parties, if presented, is ... ...
  • In re Surfers' Burgers Ltd.
    • United States
    • Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
    • September 18, 2018
    ...SURFER. In this case, the singular or plural form of the term SURFER "does not amount to a material difference." In re Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 162 U.S.P.Q. 227 (CCPA 1969); see also In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225 U.S.P.Q. 691 692 (TTAB 1985) (singular and plural forms "almost totally......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT