MAGNAVOX COMPANY v. Multivox Corporation of America, Patent Appeal No. 7321.

• Decision Date: 18 February 1965
• Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 7321.
• Citation: 341 F.2d 139,144 USPQ 501
• Parties: The MAGNAVOX COMPANY, Appellant, v. MULTIVOX CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

144 USPQ 501, 341 F.2d 139 (1965)

The MAGNAVOX COMPANY, Appellant, v. MULTIVOX CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Appellee.

Patent Appeal No. 7321.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

February 18, 1965.

Ralph B. Stewart, Solon B. Kemon, Washington D. C., for appellant.

Jacobi, Davidson & Jacobi, Herbert J. Jacobi, Samuel L. Davidson, Donald A. Kaul, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges.

MARTIN, Judge.

The Multivox Corporation of America (hereinafter Multivox) filed an application, serial No. 88,163 on December 29, 1959, to register "MULTIVOX" for electric organs, use since February 20, 1959 being alleged. That application was opposed by The Magnavox Company (hereinafter Magnavox) as confusingly similar to its mark "MAGNAVOX," used on goods hereinafter enumerated. Both parties took testimony. The opposition, No. 40,159 was dismissed by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (138 USPQ 692), and appellant seeks review of that decision.

Appellee was incorporated in New York in 1952 under the name "Multivox Corporation of America" and is engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing and selling musical instruments and accessories. Since early 1959 it has used the mark "MULTIVOX" to identify certain of its products, specifically electric organs for which registration is sought, as well as accessories therefor, such as organ benches, and instruction and song books.

From the record it is evident that appellee's electric organ is basically an accordion made in the form of a portable organ, with a small piano type key board and stops, to which an electric motor is added to supply air to the reeds. The retail prices for the "MULTIVOX" reed organs range from about $90 to $380, with a majority being in the $100-$200 range. Sales between 1959 and 1961 totaled 9,500 units, and were made primarily to music studios and music stores which handle and teach music.

Opposer-appellant Magnavox and its predecessors have continuously used the mark "MAGNAVOX" in connection with a large variety of electrical apparatus and sound amplifying equipment, including special types of telephones and associated equipment, radios, phonographs and combinations of the two, loud speakers, public address systems and components therefor, television sets, vacuum tubes, electrolytic capacitors, dry cell batteries, and digital computers and data processing systems including digital converters.¹ Various dates of first use of the marks consisting of or containing "MAGNAVOX" are noted in the record, the first being May 1915, but for this appeal it is important only that the use of "MAGNAVOX" occurred prior to the use of "MULTIVOX" on the respective goods.

The products of appellant are sold through more than 2500 dealers, the total sales since 1931 being over $665,000,000, including somewhat in excess of three million radios, phonographs, televisions and combinations thereof during the period from 1949 through 1960. Advertising expenditures in all types of media have amounted, since 1931, to over thirty million dollars or approximately five percent of the dollar sales of the goods.

Concerning the channels of trade, the board noted that the dealers handling the products of appellant include department stores which offer for sale radios, phonographs and television sets, and also "electrical appliances and musical instruments including, in some instances, electrically operated organs." Further, it is admitted by appellee that some of its customers who sell its electric reed organs also sell radio and television receivers.

Although not directly stated, it is evident that the board considered the channels of trade to be the same or substantially similar. The board stated:

"Opposer\'s `MAGNAVOX\' phonographs, television receivers and like goods and applicant\'s `MULTIVOX\' organs are products which are generally sold to the same class of purchasers, and since admittedly some dealers in applicant\'s organs also sell television and radio receivers, it is not unlikely that such purchasers will encounter the products of both parties in the same retail establishments under the respective marks `MAGNAVOX\' and `MULTIVOX\'. * * *" footnote omitted.

The goods of both parties, although not identical, are certainly closely related, and are clearly likely to be found in the same channels of trade. In that statement the board also concluded that the class of purchasers were the same. We agree that the class of purchasers, if not the same, is substantially similar.

The issue thus is considerably narrowed and was accurately stated by the board:

"* * * The only question for determination herein is whether or not in view of opposer\'s prior and extensive use of `MAGNAVOX\' for its various products purchasers encountering applicant\'s `MULTIVOX\' organs are likely to assume that they are produced by or in some way originate with opposer."

The board found no likelihood of confusion, stating:

"* * * These marks are, as opposer has pointed out , alike in that the terminal portions of the marks are identical and that the prefixes both commence with the letter `M\'. This common feature `Vox\' is, however, a dictionary term connoting voice, and as such has a merely descriptive significance as applied to the goods of the parties, and considering that the initial portions `MULTI\' and `MAGNA\' are readily distinguishable terms with well known meanings, it is concluded that `MAGNAVOX\' and `MULTIVOX\' are sufficiently different that confusion in trade as to the source of the goods sold thereunder is not reasonably likely to occur."

We cannot agree, and feel that the concurrent use of the two marks on the various goods of the two parties is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source of the goods carrying the mark "MULTIVOX."

Insofar as the marks themselves are concerned, both begin with the letter "M"; both have eight letters, and the suffix of both is "VOX," which is, in our opinion, the dominant feature of the marks. They present in their entirety the same general appearance to the purchaser such that confusion, mistake or deception is likely. As has often been noted by this court in considering likelihood of confusion, it is a question of the perception of the marks as a whole. It is for this reason that we reject the approach of the appellee,...