“with coined words which are meaningless so far as the English language is concerned, slight variations in spelling or arrangement of letters are often insufficient to direct the buyer’s attention to the distinction between marks”
How later courts described this case
- “with coined words which are meaningless so far as the English language is concerned, slight variations in spelling or arrangement of letters are often insufficient to direct the buyer’s attention to the distinction between marks”
- “[T]he meaning of words in trademarks is often an important consideration in determining whether likelihood of confusion exists.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MARTIN, Judge
(dissenting).
I agree with the majority that the goods of the parties are • substantially similar. However, I cannot agree with the analysis of the majority leading to a conclusion that there would be no likelihood of confusion between the marks.
Even giving “Seven” and “Sun” a dominant emphasis or weight, the marks in their entirety are “SEVEN-UP” and “SUN-UP.” It seems clear to me that the two marks are so related in sound *569 and appearance as to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive when applied to the respective goods. I think the board and the majority over-analyze the mark, and place too much emphasis on the meaning of the words thereof.
But regardless of the details of dissimilarity in the sound, meaning, and appearance of the marks, I believe the marks have the same psychological effect on the mind and, therefore, are likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. In view of the above, I would reverse.