# United-Hagie Hybrids, Inc. v. Escambia Chemical Corporation

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · January 9, 1969 · 404 F.2d 987

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9454105

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED-HAGIE HYBRIDS, INC., Appellant, v. ESCAMBIA CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** January 9, 1969
- **Citations:** 404 F.2d 987; 56 C.C.P.A. 800
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kirkpatrick
- **Judges:** Worley, Rich, Almond, Baldwin, Kirkpatrick
- **Cited by:** 1 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/9454105

## Opinion text

KIRKPATRICK, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached by the majority in the present case for the reasons set out in the two dissenting opinions in Planters Nut & Chocolate Co. v. Crown Nut Co., 305 F.2d 916 , 50 CCPA 1120. Viewing the symbols in their en-tireties the appellee’s mark simply bears no resemblance ■ to the appellant’s. The only thing in which any similarity can be found is in the concept of a kicking mule, plus the use of the word “kick” in the slogan which accompanies each mark. This I think is insufficient ground on which to base a finding that the applicant’s mark “so resembles a mark registered in the Patent Office * * * as to be likely * * * to cause confusion,” etc. which is the statutory requirement. The majority evidently feels that similarity of an abstract concept is not sufficient to overcome lack of resemblance and I agree.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9454105. Public record. Not legal advice.