The opinion
ALMOND, Judge
(dissenting).
In my opinion CZ so resembles E-Z as to be likely, when applied to the goods in issue, to cause confusion or to cause mistake. The majority, although admitting that the marks “differ [merely] by a single letter” and “are somewhat similar in sound,” feels otherwise. Yet, the only express reasons given for so holding fail to find support in the record before this court. Applicant produced no evidence, with respect to its goods, of “the particular area of commerce * * * and the discriminating type of purchaser * * *,” in light of which the majority views the marks in question. The majority’s not so subtle attempt at implying that appellant-opposer’s mark is suggestive and perhaps weak in that “E-Z sounds like ‘easy’ and thus generates the idea of an attribute of the goods” must fail absent some logical suggestion as to how “easy” is an attribute of fine or printing papers. Easy what? Nor is it clear to me why the mark CZ, sounding so much like E-Z, can only represent initials of some sort.
So much for the express reasons for the majority’s decision. What concerns me are the reasons implicit in the majority’s discussion of the facts of the case. The facts indicate that this case involves also a question of priority of use arising from consideration as to what is or is not the natural field of expansion for a producer of coarse paper products, as appellant-opposer originally started out, as well as consideration as to whether or not applicant has possible intervening rights. I do not feel that this issue can be avoided, as has been done by the board and majority here, simply by expressing an unfounded conclusion that no likelihood of confusion exists. I would reverse and remand the case to the board for proper consideration of the primary issue involved.