B. F. GOODRICH CO. v. KENILWORTH MFG. CO., Inc.

B. F. GOODRICH CO. v. KENILWORTH MFG. CO., Inc. Patent Appeal No. 2210. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. April 29, 1930. Rehearing Denied May 28, 1930. BLAND, Associate Judge, dissenting. Eakin & Avery, of Akron, Ohio (Willard D. Eakin, of Akron, Ohio, of counsel), for appellant. Louis Alexander, of New York City, for appellee. Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND,' HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges. [MAJORITY — GARRETT, Associate Judge.] GARRETT, Associate Judge. In this case appellant (opposer) has appealed from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents sustaining the action of the Examiner of Interferences dismissing the opposition to the application of appellee for registration as a trade-mark of the compound word “Zip-Midy,” having superimposed thereon in a panel shaped box or elongated rectangle the word “Kenilworth.” Opposer is the owner of the trade-mark registered April 7, 1925, No. 197,090, comprising the word “Zipper” used on boots and overshoes of rubber and fabric. Appellee (applicant) states use on and for “wearing apparel for men, women, and children— namely middies and sport shirts made of knitted and textile fabrics.” We think the case is on-all fours with one between the same parties, No. 2209, 40 F.(2d) 121, heard and decided concurrently herewith, wherein the words at issue are “Zipper” and “Zip-Kniek.” The only resemblance in the marks themselves is contained in the single syllable “Zip.” In the instant case the imposition of the word “Kenilworth” over or upon the larger letters “Zip-Midy” tends to make the resemblance even more remote than that existing between the marks “Zipper” and “ZipKniek” in plain letters in case 2209. We think the marks are entirely dissimilar and that the use by appellee of “ZipMidy,” as proposed, would not be likely to cause confusion in the mind of the public or deceive purchasers, and should be admitted to registration. The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. Affirmed. [DISSENT — BLAND, Associate Judge (dissenting).] BLAND, Associate Judge (dissenting). This is a companion case to suit No. 2209, 40 F.(2d) 121, and suit No. 2211, 40 F.(2d) 125, between the same parties. In suit No.. 2209, the Kenilworth Manufacturing Company was granted'registration for the term “Zip-Kniek” as applied to certain kinds of men’s, women’s, and children’s knickers, etc. In suit No. 2211, it was granted the right to register the term “Zip-Over” in connection with the word “Kenilworth” for use on sweaters and sweat shirts, and in this case appellee was granted the right to register “Zip-Midy” in connection with the word “Kenilworth” for use on wearing apparel for men, women, and children, including a middy, etc. For the reasons set out in suit No. 2209, decided concurrently herewith, I dissent from the views of my associates.