# General Cable Corporation v. Republic Wire and Cable Corporation

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · February 20, 1964 · 327 F.2d 1019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449872

## Case

- **Full name:** GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. REPUBLIC WIRE AND CABLE CORPORATION, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** February 20, 1964
- **Citations:** 327 F.2d 1019; 51 C.C.P.A. 1035
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Smith
- **Judges:** Rich, Worley, Martin, Smith, Almond
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449872

## Opinion text

SMITH, Judge
(concurring).
The majority opinion supports its af-firmance of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board for a number of stated reasons. I am satisfied, in reaching the same result, to do so simply by a comparison of the marks in issue. This comparison indicates that the only common feature is the use of the prefix “Super.” The record discloses many marks having the identical prefix and further reveals that it is not used alone as a trademark. These factors establish that the “Super” portion of the mark per se performs no trademark function. The suffixes of the marks in issue differ from each other and when combined with the common prefix “Super” become the marks which must be considered as the entities upon which the decision must be predicated. I see no necessity for going beyond the precise language of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board:
“ * * * Giving due consideration to the nature of the term ‘SUPER’, and considering the differences between applicant’s mark and each of opposer’s mark’s [sic] in their en-tireties, it is concluded that there is no reasonable likelihood of purchaser confusion, mistake or deception.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449872. Public record. Not legal advice.