Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corp. v. Bliss

6 Citing cases

  1. Syncromatic Air C. v. Williams Oil-O-Matic

    109 F.2d 784 (C.C.P.A. 1940)   Cited 6 times

    In addition to sustaining the opposition, the examiner also refused registration on the ground that the word "system" occurring in the particular description of the goods contained in the application was inapt, citing Lever Bros. Co. v. Butler Mfg. Co., 88 F.2d 842, 24 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1000. The Commissioner of Patents in his decision held this ruling to be correct, but stated that it "* * * may be overcome by appropriate amendment to the application after the termination of this proceeding in the event applicant should finally prevail." The commissioner affirmed the holding of the examiner that the mark of appellant is confusingly similar to appellee's mark "Air-O-Matic" previously registered for the same goods, and on this phase of the proceeding stated in his decision as follows: "I think the examiner of interferences was right. Applicant's argument to the contrary is based largely upon the case of Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corporation v. Bliss, 54 F.2d 430, 19 C.C.P.A. [Patents], 821, where registration was permitted of the word `Thermatic' over opposer's mark `Oil-O-Matic.' Obviously those marks are less nearly similar than the ones here involved; and the goods to which the marks were applied, while of the same descriptive properties, were not identical. It is true that air conditioning installations are relatively expensive, and that there is less likelihood of confusion than if the marks were applied to goods `of a character involving less discrimination and care in their purchase.' Nevertheless I do not think it can be said beyond doubt that no confusion is likely, and where doubt exists it must be resolved in favor of the first user."

  2. Eureka Williams v. Kres-Kno Oil Burner MFG

    202 F.2d 763 (C.C.P.A. 1953)   Cited 3 times

    Upon appeal, the Examiner-in-Chief reversed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences, basing such action on the authority of the decision of the Commissioner in the case of Eureka Williams Corporation v. Willoughby Machine and Tool Co., 636 O.G. 1092, 86 USPQ 170, where it was held that the marks "Thermomatic" and "Oil-O-Matic" were not confusingly similar. He also relied on the authority of this court's decisions in the cases of Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corp. v. Bliss, 54 F.2d 430, 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 821, and Syncromatic Air Conditioning Corp. v. Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corp., 109 F.2d 784, 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1010. In those cases the marks "Thermatic" and "Oil-O-Matic" and "Syncromatic" and "Air-O-Matic," respectively, were held not to be confusingly similar.

  3. Eureka Williams v. Willoughby Mach. Tool

    194 F.2d 543 (C.C.P.A. 1952)   Cited 5 times

    On the latter basis, however, this and other federal courts have always had, and will continue to have, recourse to such citations. Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc., v. Commissioner of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 545, 546, 40 S.Ct. 414, 64 L.Ed. 705; Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corp. v. Edward P. Bliss, Jr., 54 F.2d 430, 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 821; Kelvinator Corp. v. Norge Corp., 94 F.2d 384, 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 857; Syncromatic Air Conditioning Corp. v. Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corp., 109 F.2d 784, 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1010; Langendorf United Bakeries, Inc., v. General Foods Corp., 125 F.2d 159, 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 831, 835. In an opposition proceeding under the act of 1905 the validity of an opposer's previously registered mark cannot be challenged.

  4. Syncromatic Corp. v. Eureka Williams Corp.

    174 F.2d 649 (7th Cir. 1949)   Cited 10 times

    To state such a proposition, it seems to us, is to demonstrate its untenability. Thus in Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corp v. Bliss, 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 821, 54 F.2d 430, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held that the trade-mark "Thermatic" was not confusingly similar to "Oil-O-Matic." We conclude that the evidence could support only the conclusions reached by the trial court.

  5. Williams Oil-O-Matic H. v. United Furnace E

    88 F.2d 719 (C.C.P.A. 1937)

    The marks of the opposer end with the two syllables "Matic," which, in themselves, have a distinctive sound. It will be borne in mind that the distinctive goods which are involved here are costly, and involve close discrimination in buying. This feature we called attention to in the recent case of Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corp. v. Edward P. Bliss, Jr., 54 F.2d 430, 19 C.C.P.A.(Patents) 821. Where such discrimination in buying is exercised, there is not so much probability of confusion as in ordinary cases where less discrimination is exercised. Again, the devices, while both are used for heating, are much different in their other ordinary uses.

  6. Harlan-Wallins Coal v. Transcontinental Oil

    64 F.2d 122 (C.C.P.A. 1933)   Cited 6 times

    The use of coal and oils as fuel is so near akin that we have said that devices for feeding the same, respectively, to furnaces, are goods of the same descriptive properties. Cross v. Williams Oil-O-Matic H. Corp., 48 F.2d 659, 18 C.C.P.A. 1192; Williams Oil-O-Matic H. Corp. v. Bliss, 54 F.2d 430, 19 C.C.P.A. 821. It is stated by appellant that the Patent Office, in its classification of various products, has placed gasoline and oils in "Class 15, Oils and Greases" and coal in "Class 1, Raw and Partly Prepared Materials."