*1 “King-Kup. of mean- )f color and content to take a Applicant’s mark prior quite which ignore hold- that on from our are to we Unless registrability predicated. comparison was proper ings, basis compare opposer’s standing marks is “King” per se The word “King’s” applicant’s entire mark candy is, as shown alone field “King-Kup.” registrations, mark prior a third point arewe mark. At this weak leads to Such in the ma- in accord with the concession sufficiently marks are clusion “ ‘King’s’ jority opinion is almost mistake different so found.” as weak a mark as can be likely. deception not be pres- sustain we would not case, aspect of this Another ent source where opinion, majority in the overlooked likely confusion, meanings which in the different found by applicant of the arises from the use Op- marks. two are inherent “King” part of its entire word as a being “King’s” pos- poser’s mark “King” “King-Kup.” when so used mark “King” imme- name sessive form suggest op- or indicate cap- entity diately it with associates candy could be the source Applicant’s possessing. able mark. Good- on which uses its possessive con- however, has no such Tropical all-Sanford, Inc. Garment v. “King” notation, is here word Mfg. Co., 736, 275 F.2d 47 CCPA 821. adjective. use in this sense Its something quality, at- denotes a spelled “Kup” cup, noun tributable the ad- applicant’s mark. As such range ap- jective use defines the specifies plication of the noun something being else. distinctive “King” many has In this sense “king “king cobra,” “kingbolt,” as in uses acquired, crab,” has due It also etc. others, advertising uses extensive FACTORS, INC., D. T. COMPANY ciga- “king” suggestion of size as size Appellant, rettes, etc. v. dealing When, SINCLAIR, Jr., H. M. Trustee for the we must words alert common Partnership, Ohio The Sinclair Manu meanings precise and charac- their facturing Company, Appellee. As Mr. Justice Holmes ob- teristics. in a different context in Towne served States Court of Customs 1918, 418, Eisner, 425, 245 U.S. v. 158, 159, 62 L.Ed. 372: S.Ct. 1961. crystal, not a trans- “A word unchanged, parent it is the skin thought living may vary of a greatly in color and content ac-

cording to the circumstances and the used.” in which it is

time “King’s,” opposer’s Here endowed properties the common per- and as such has been chameleon color of its skin

mitted according mood

948 polish

mobile and automobile and and “Blue Coral service polish preservative. Sealer” for a Applicant’s detergent, “Coral,” is sold in retail stores through kets, cans, in 22- and 32-ounce in all the usual states wholesale channels Mountains, Rocky in- east of the and is tended dishes al- for though it is also for wash- recommended textiles. automobiles and certain The letters of in the trademark application displayed on rough are drawn so as to simulate pieces natural A use of coral. first 10,1956, “Coral” in commerce alleged. Opposer Coral” use “Blue started to trademark in 1928 connection liquid with a for auto- Later, opposer “Blue Cor- mobiles. paste al a wax Sealer” reference to polish preservative Coral” as and “Blue cleaner-polish is a service mark. The Washington, Schuyler, Jr., E. William packaged in and the seal- 16-ouncebottles (Francis C. Browne and Andrew D. C. 80-gram jars packaged er is and 227- Washington, C., Beveridge, D. B. gram cans. Both cleaner sealer are sel), appellant. predominate in color and blue is Ohio, Toledo, Crampton, Freeman and labels. containers Washington, Benedict, Burns, & Doane Opposer has to distribute its chosen Washington, (James Burns, P. D. D. C. solely through new automobile counsel), , appellee. C. dealers. These Judge, WORLEY, Chief Before products on the cars of their customers Judges, MARTIN, RICH, owners and sell the to car Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPAT- do-it-yourself applications. agreements RICK.1 Cadillac and Ponti- Corpora- ac Divisions Judge. MARTIN, Lincoln-Mercury tion and with Divi- Company Ford appeal Motor sion the decision of which the container labels Trademark Trial Board products will Office, recite both name of the States Patent of USPQ dismissing company opposition motor car name. example, registration For Coral” label in one “Blue the word “Coral” as a evidence bears the word “Cadillac” in for “a household trademark detergent.” script approximately applicant, appel- letters of The Sinclair, Jr., the block in “Blue size as is M. as trustee lee Manufacturing recites and also on the left side of the The Sinclair Com- opposer-appellant “Distributed Cadillac pany. H. D. label: T. * * By Factors, Special Company Inc., reg- Car Division. Ar- owner of the rangement Company, With H. D. T. Coral” for Fae- an auto- Connell, pursuant provisions Judge District O’ Sec- 1. United States Senior Pennsylvania, 294(d), Title 28 U.S.C. Eastern District tion designated participate place as that manufactured turn ny labels. tors label recites those the the whether Treatment Has No other new automobile (cid:127)end the sells and .similar thereafter be used can pointed be used to wash sand and to the source or stated: “Blue Coral” on the or versal fusion. tomobile that in the minds the same surface and “Blue Coral Sealer” same surface to of and the There is no be concluded marks and the differences these in some products der which same use products products ordinarily cleaned parties finally “ * * Considering ship result will associate the dismissing this common theme of reasonably shipments * * *." conditions president Car Division. of the board’s decision. products producer.” out that “Coral” It is also concurrent use of surfaces while ‘Coral’ functions to their dealers. ships its be used to urges polished way is that to are household they dispute distributed differences between “A mark. The sole likely to deceive their distributors origin the its its own H. D. T. and circumstances of originated purchasers shipped parties accomplish a several reasons for connected with the asserted are opposer Equal.” consecutively products public surface. ‘Blue respective to Cadillac then as to protect clean and dealers, ordinarily detergents, cause confusion together between along to assume purchasers detergent so that use Coral’, result in grit opposer’s with or testified applicant, the Opposer also “Coral” the would not Blue automobiles side performing directly Coral” can using the materials nature from au- desirable goods issue burnish Compa- who on the it result- that sold board urged un- Coral are ships It that such is pri- can as in to is is .ly prived merely descriptive products and containers. ventional templated. ing public which makes the mark distinctive public’s its channels change tinctive with Coral” is two distinct lieve that an automobile though not by of coral. We includes blue whereas be determinative. composition kets and can be teristics manufacturers “Blue Coral” ufacturers, convinces try that Ford, dealers There Although may Regarding purchasers of these remembered that exclusively and it is likely of is used with it has chosen to and the judged automobiles. associates blue its a technical throughout mind. combination is created stores, supermarkets, and has been and uses of is no products of its modes product, “Blue us the to gone “Coral” product detergent such Further, it purposes distribution opposer product that these arbitrary just that the channels be argued that, presumption before dissimilar. and other and dealers strongly products question thousands “Blue” of distribution coral, confused stores. in and but we be preparation great selling and that of the to new product restrict description of coral clear that polishing through should is in dish customary are so is great mark as with coral products. country identify automobile is but doubt that products primary unique used are pains to wax, colors. Also it should is the of automobile This evidence dominated usual charac- with “Coral” do its that although op- car different not that descriptive urges themselves automobile subject to “Blue” not this trade, op- it, practical- products, are washing market- and dis- used to used on all con- *3 dealers, to feature be de- should When “Blue agree prove using these wash drug man- even that con- the be- in is is trademark, product so may party this Since either extend group unlikely much closely this business it into com- more purchasers generally peting public than those here before us and purchase who each since is free ap- marketing opposer’s products practices, confuse I not think do plicant’s detergent, necessary de- desirable to base this upon sold cision dishes and present marketing practice trademark “Coral” done in partial *4 support of the conclusion there reached. course, opposer argues, Of consider- given ation should be to its marketing practices, but not concluding similar extent of probable, in view channels of trade are pre- of all of the evidence that has sented the con- to us trary. Opposer exclusive- revels automo- ness its channel of trade —the reading industry tive we believe —and improba- the whole record that it is appli- Application ble of Paul Hollis TAYLOR. if cant’s trade. did, future we believe United States Court of Customs differences in the marks and the negate by pur- the likelihood confusion April 14, 1961. chasers as to the source especially so if were gro-

sold cery shape view

stores in in “Coral” in mark. analysis In view of our of the situa-

tion, opinion are of that the use by applicant of its trademark on is not to cause confusion or mis- purchasers.

take deceive We there-

fore affirm the decision of board.

Affirmed. (concurring). concurring decision

majority, I do so the reason applicant’s mark “Coral” used on its synthetic detergent reg- previously resemble mark “Blue Coral” as to be cause purchasers. do not sound look alike. alike or The mark “Blue image Coral” calls forth mental

psychological response is distinct imagery psychological from the sponse by applicant’s called forth

“Coral.”