From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commerce Drug Company, Inc. v. Boyle Co.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Apr 9, 1964
329 F.2d 1020 (C.C.P.A. 1964)

Opinion

Patent Appeal No. 7191.

April 9, 1964.

Richard W. Blum, New York City (Alex Friedman, New York City, and Charles R. Allen, Jr., Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant.

Theodore W. Miller, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before WORLEY, C.J., and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, JJ.


Commerce Drug Company asks us to reverse the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision to cancel its registration of "BOYLENE" for use on an antiseptic preparation for boils. Boyle Co., petitioner, relies on prior use and registration of "Boyle" on "vitamin capsules, ferrous sulfate tablets, ointment for the treatment of hemorrhoids or piles, diethylstilbestrol tablets, strychnine tonic, tablets used for relief from minor throat irritations, quinidine sulphate tablets, antacid tablets, folic acid tablets, tincture benzoin compound, thyroid powder, rutin tablets, aminophylline tablets, sodium salicylate, laxative tablets, tablets for the treatment of iron deficiency, multi-vitamin preparation and ephedrine sulfate."

Registration No. 714,329, issued April 25, 1961, from an application filed November 13, 1959.

Registration No. 510,716, issued June 7, 1949, from an application filed March 11, 1948.

The board, after noting that Boyle Co. is the prior user, and that the competing goods are pharmaceutical preparations, concluded "that the resemblance between the marks here involved are [sic] such as to be quite likely to cause purchaser confusion, and to lead purchasers to believe that "BOYLENE" is but another in petitioner's line of pharmaceutical products."

We find no error in that reasoning or conclusion. While we appreciate appellant's argument that Boyle is a surname whereas "BOYLENE" is arbitrary, the manner in which Boyle is completely incorporated into Boylene results in a marked similarity of the words.

Although appellant emphasizes that there is no evidence of actual confusion, the statutory test is a "likelihood of confusion" which, we have no doubt, is the case here.

"XQ5. Does petitioner put out or distribute and sell an antiseptic preparation for boils under the name of `Boyle'? A. Yes.
"XQ6. If your answer to XQ5 is in the affirmative, please annex a `Boyle' label for such product. A. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a label or photostatic copy thereof of Boyle Drawing Salve."

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Commerce Drug Company, Inc. v. Boyle Co.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Apr 9, 1964
329 F.2d 1020 (C.C.P.A. 1964)
Case details for

Commerce Drug Company, Inc. v. Boyle Co.

Case Details

Full title:COMMERCE DRUG COMPANY, Inc. d.b.a. Commerce Drug Co., Appellant, v. BOYLE…

Court:United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Date published: Apr 9, 1964

Citations

329 F.2d 1020 (C.C.P.A. 1964)
141 U.S.P.Q. 244

Citing Cases

Pet Milk v. Knudsen Creamery Co. of Calif

As usually pronounced, "petite" does not even include the sound of the word "pet." On this subject of…