# The Seven-Up Company v. Tropicana Products, Inc

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · March 3, 1966 · 356 F.2d 567

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9451353

## Case

- **Full name:** The Seven-Up Company v. Tropicana Products, Inc.
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** March 3, 1966
- **Citations:** 356 F.2d 567; 53 C.C.P.A. 1209
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Martin
- **Judges:** Martin, Rich, Smith, Almond, Kirkpatrick
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9451353

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9451353. Public record. Not legal advice.