FEED SERVICE CORPORATION v. FS Services, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 8349. |
| Citation | 167 USPQ 407,432 F.2d 478 |
| Parties | FEED SERVICE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. FS SERVICES, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Thomas Cifelli, Jr., William E. Hedges, Richards & Cifelli, Newark, N. J., attorneys of record, for appellant.
Richard Bushnell, Olson, Trexler, Wolters & Bushnell, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and McMANUS, Judge, Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 156 USPQ 255 (1967), which sustained two oppositions brought by appellee against appellant's applications serial No. 210,289, filed January 21, 1965, and serial No. 177,244, filed September 18, 1963. We affirm the board's decision.
The '289 application seeks registration of the mark
for devices for receiving and dispensing nutrient feed supplements for animals. The '244 application seeks registration for the same mark as applied to animal feed compositions used in the feeding of animals.
The basis of appellee's opposition was its prior use of the mark
on a wide variety of products and services for farm use, including livestock feeds and supplements.1
As set forth fully in the board's opinion, cited above, the board concluded that allowance of appellant's applications would result in likelihood of confusion or mistake because the prominent features of the marks were the letters rather than the design settings, the marks were used on the same goods, the goods were advertised to the same class of purchasers (farmers) through some of the same media, and the modus operandi of each party was "strikingly similar in nature" to that of the other.
Appellant complains that the board erred in finding likelihood of confusion. Appellant's first contention is that its goods are distinctly different from those of appellee in terms of mixture ingredients in the feeds, etc. We have no concern here with the details of the parties' products, which could always change after registration. The goods are of the same general type: feed supplements and feeding equipment. This was found by the board and is amply demonstrated by the record.
Appellant points out that it seeks no rights in the letters FSC alone, but only in the letters in the design shown. Appellant contends the board did not give proper significance to the design features, but we find the contrary. The board clearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc.
...confusion must be based upon a consideration of appellant's goods as described in the application. Feed Service Corp. v. FS Services, Inc., 58 CCPA 708, 432 F.2d 478, 167 USPQ 407 (1970); Ford Motor Co. v. Ford, 59 CCPA 1124, 462 F.2d 1405, 174 USPQ 456 (1972). Further, the description must......
-
In re Gmbh, 79108598
... ... Owner: Siegfried & Parzifal, Inc ... After ... the refusal to register ... registrant's goods and services, it is sufficient if ... likelihood of confusion for ... likely to cause confusion. See, e.g., Feed ... Service Corp. v. FS Services, Inc., 432 F.2d ... ...
-
Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball Limited Partnership v. Mikus
... ... Deutsch of NBA Properties, Inc. for Minnesota Timberwolves ... Basketball Limited ... source as Opposer's goods and services, or are ... authorized, endorsed or sponsored by, or ... be confused. Feed Service Corp. v. FS Services, ... Inc., 432 F.2d 478, ... 1962); In re Anderson Electric Corporation, 470 F.2d ... 593, 152 U.S.P.Q. 245 (CCPA 1967); In ... ...
-
Universal Oil Products Co. v. Rexall Drug & Chemical Co.
...goods in appellee's application for trademark registration is not limited to that specific material, Feed Service Corp. v. FS Services, Inc., 432 F.2d 478, 480, 58 CCPA 708, 710 (1970), and we make note of this testimony only in the way of background Appellant is in the chemical process ind......