stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed
How later courts described this case
- stating that the mere existence of modern supermarket containing wide variety or products should not foreclose further inquiry into the likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks on any goods so displayed
- “We conclude, therefore, that this opposition proceeding as to four classes of a combined application is, effectively, four different oppositions which require four different factual determinations and four different conclusions on the ultimate issue of likelihood of confusion under § 2(d).”
- “The means of distribution and sale, although certainly relevant, are areas of peripheral inquiry. The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d
- “The fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MILLER, Judge
(concurring).
I agree with everything in the majority opinion except the portion which speaks to the various industries which produce the different classes of goods here involved, a point which I consider irrelevant to the issue of likelihood of confusion in this case.