Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
| Citation | 390 F.2d 1015 |
| Decision Date | 14 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 7915. |
| Parties | FORT HOWARD PAPER COMPANY, Appellant, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Morsell & Morsell, Curtis B. Morsell, Milwaukee, Wis. (Arthur L. Morsell, Milwaukee, Wis., of counsel), for appellant.
Hume, Clement, Hume & Lee, Jerome Gilson, Chicago Ill. (Dean A. Olds, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and Judges RICH, SMITH, ALMOND, and KIRKPATRICK.*
This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 148 USPQ 607, dismissing appellant's opposition to the registration by appellee of "Hi-Dri" on the Principal Register for "Absorbent Paper Tissue Suitable for Hygienic, Cosmetic, or Cleaning Purposes," serial No. 160,711, filed January 15, 1963, claiming first use December 27, 1962.
Appellant's opposition is based on the admittedly long prior use as trademarks for paper towels of "So-Dri,"1 principally relied on, its earlier-used variant "Sodri,"2 and "Shur-Dri."3
Both parties took testimony, the witnesses for each side being cross-examined by counsel for the other.
The appeal presents two issues: (1) likelihood of confusion, etc., within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(d));4 (2) whether appellee made bona fide commercial use of its mark so as to support right to register.5
The essential facts shown by the testimony and exhibits are adequately summarized in the board's published opinion and we see no need to repeat them. The highlights are that opposer's registered marks have been used extensively on paper towels designed and sold to automotive service stations for cleaning windshields and the like. Applicant's goods include paper towels and there is, therefore, identity of goods.
A key factor in the board's decision of no likelihood of confusion is the descriptiveness of the term "dry" or "dri" as applied to any kind of towel and the apparent commonplace use of that term as a syllable or part of trademarks adopted and used by applicant-appellee and third parties for towels of both paper and cloth. The record shows use by what is now a division of applicant, Kimberly-Clark, since 1911, of "Driwell" on paper towels, Reg. No. 522,321, except for the period 1924-1934 when "Drytex" was used instead. In the 1941-1964 period some 2,000,000 cases of "Driwell" towels were sold. Kimberly-Clark also has a registration of "Kaydry," No. 774,552, for disposable towels which the record shows to be paper towels. There are, in addition, 25 third-party registrations of record of marks containing "dry" or "dri," 11 of them for paper towels and 14 for cloth towels. The paper towel marks are in several instances the subject of recent or renewed registrations, indicating a probability of recent or present use.
Notwithstanding the apparent similarities between "So-Dri" in particular and "Hi-Dri," the board concluded there would be no likelihood of confusion on the following basis:
Opposer\'s marks "So-Dri" and "Shur-Dri" and applicant\'s mark "Hi-Dri" obviously were adopted to suggest that the paper towels sold thereunder possess superior drying qualities. It likewise appears from the record that it has been a common practice for producers of paper towels and of such competitive products as cloth towels to adopt as trademarks for their products designations comprising the word "Dry" or "Dri", having a similar suggestive connotation, such as "Dri-N-Shine", "Dri-Kleen", "Dry-Mor", "Sparkle-Dri", "Easi-Dri", "Dryfast", and "Wipemdri". Under such circumstances, the scope of protection afforded opposer\'s marks must necessarily be narrow and manifestly cannot extend to preclude the registration by others of similar but otherwise distinguishable notations or trademarks for towels. Cases cited. * * * The fact, as urged by opposer, that its marks and that of applicant are hyphenated marks and the syllable "Dri" appears therein as a prefix instead of a suffix as in the third-party registrations is of no particular significance * * *. Accordingly, although the designations "So-Dri", "Shur-Dri", and "Hi-Dri" may have similar meanings, the differences between them in both sound and appearances are sufficient, in view of the nature of the marks, to preclude a likelihood of confusion or mistake as to the source of the goods sold thereunder.
We see no clear error in that conclusion or in the reasoning by which it was reached.
Compare Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Gulf States Paper Corp., 376 F.2d 904, 54 CCPA 1375, where opposition to registration of "E-Z NAPS" by the owner of "HANDINAP" and "HANDINAPS" was dismissed, the goods of both parties being paper napkins.
On the second issue, it is opposer's contention that there was no bona fide use of "Hi-Dri" in commerce adequate to support a registration. Briefly, the facts are as follows. Kimberly-Clark's legal department made careful arrangements for the interstate shipment and sale on December 12, 1962, from its plant in Neenah, Wisconsin, to a drugstore in Waukegan, Illinois, of six boxes each of facial tissues, table napkins, toilet tissues and paper towels, all boxed or wrapped in coverings bearing the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zazu Designs v. L'Oreal, S.A.
...a way that allows firms to seek protection for a mark before investing substantial sums in promotion. See Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 390 F.2d 1015 (C.C.P.A.1968); cf. Jim Dandy Co. v. Martha White Foods, Inc., 458 F.2d 1397, 1399 (C.C.P.A.1972) (party may rely on adverti......
-
Blue Bell, Inc. v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc.
...F.2d 87, 93-94 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 907, 84 S.Ct. 1167, 12 L.Ed.2d 177 (1964); Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 390 F.2d 1015, 1016-1017, 55 CCPA 947 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 831, 89 S.Ct. 99, 21 L.Ed.2d 101 (1968); Mr. Donut of America, Inc. v. Mr. Do......
-
La Societe Anonyme des Parfums LeGalion v. Jean Patou, Inc.
...supra, 234 F.2d 538; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 49 F.2d 842, 18 CCPA 1386 (1931); Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 390 F.2d 1015, 1017, 55 CCPA 947, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 831, 89 S.Ct. 99, 21 L.Ed.2d 101 (1968); Community of Roquefort v. Santo, 443 F.2d 11......
-
General Cigar Co., Inc. v. G.D.M. Inc.
...commerce prior to final issue of trademark registration was not considered unreasonable. Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 55 C.C.P.A. 947, 390 F.2d 1015, 1017 (C.C.P.A.1968). More was required, however, "if its owner seeks to use the mark to stifle the efforts of others." Scho......