From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cluett, Peabody v. J.H. Bonck Co.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Feb 1, 1968
390 F.2d 754 (C.C.P.A. 1968)

Opinion

Patent Appeal No. 7899.

February 1, 1968.

Robert J. Dockery, Leo Fornero, New York City, for appellant.

Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK.

Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.


Cluett, Peabody seeks registration of "TTM" and certain ancillary design matter for "Boys' Shirts." The Bonck Co., relying on prior use and registration of "T.M.T." on shirts and pants, opposes, alleging that applicant's "TTM" so resembles "T.M.T." as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sustained opposer's position, both initially and on reconsideration. We agree.

In its consideration, the board stated:

The marks "TTM" and "T.M.T." comprise arbitrary arrangements of identical letters, and considering the difficulty of retaining such marks in mind over an appreciable period of time, we are clearly of the opinion that their use for identical goods would be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. cf. Vitamin Corporation of America v. American Home Products Corporation, [ 166 F.2d 203,] 35 CCPA 952, * * *; and Crystal Corporation, formerly the Crystal Chemical Company, Incorporated v. Manhattan Chemical Manufacturing Company, Inc., (Anna T. Fox, Assignee, Substituted), 75 F.2d 506, 22 CCPA 1027 * * *. As stated by the court in the last cited case

We think it is well known that it is more difficult to remember a series of arbitrarily arranged letters than it is to remember figures, syllables or phrases. The difficulty of remembering such lettered marks makes confusion between such marks, when similar, more likely.

We have also reviewed, in light of appellant's arguments, the testimony of its witnesses, together with the documents and third party registrations submitted, but are not persuaded that the board erred.

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

SMITH, J., concurs in the result.


Summaries of

Cluett, Peabody v. J.H. Bonck Co.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Feb 1, 1968
390 F.2d 754 (C.C.P.A. 1968)
Case details for

Cluett, Peabody v. J.H. Bonck Co.

Case Details

Full title:CLUETT, PEABODY CO., Inc., Appellant, v. J.H. BONCK COMPANY, Inc., Appellee

Court:United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Date published: Feb 1, 1968

Citations

390 F.2d 754 (C.C.P.A. 1968)
156 U.S.P.Q. 401

Citing Cases

Specialty Measurements v. Measurement Sys.

Numerous courts have held that probability of confusion exists where there is transposition of the same…

Jack Poust Company v. John Gross Co.

We also recognize that the marks are composed of words possessing well-known dictionary definitions; that the…