PURE OIL CO.
v.
THE PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks, affirming the registration of the appellee's trademark.
Appellee sought to register its trademark 'The Pep Boys — Manny, Moe & Jack' for lubricants, which the Patent Office denied. Appellant opposed registr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Descriptive Words cases and more on FLexlaw
EDGERTON, Associate Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court which authorized registration of appellee’s trademark.1 The mark consists of appellee’s corporate name, “The Pep Boys — Manny, Moe & Jack”, in distinctive lettering, together with caricatures of three individuals. It is used in connection with automobile lubricating oils, cup greases and high pressure lubricants'. The Patent Office had denied registration, and appellant the Pure Oil Company now opposes it on the ground of confusion2 with appellant’s registered marks, Wocopep for gasoline and Pep for gasoline and fuel oil.
We need not consider appellant’s ownership, priority, etc., for we agree with the trial court and the interference examiner that there is no likelihood of confusion. Appellant’s marks and appellee’s are similar only in that they use the word “Pep.” That word is descriptive and therefore not capable of exclusive appropriation.3 Registration-of a descriptive word does not prevent others from using the same word, or from registering a new mark which uses it, if the new mark has additional features which are so distinct that confusion is unlikely.4 In deciding whether confusion is likely, the entire marks must be compared. Appellee’s mark is sharply distinguished from appellant’s marks by appellee’s peculiar corporate name and by distinctive caricatures;5 Much less ma' suffice to prevent confusion from commor use of a descriptive word, even though !he word alone is used, as “Pep” is said to be used here, to identify a particular product.6
Affirmed.
R.S. § 4915; 35 U.S.C.A. § 63.
Pepsi-Cola Co. v. Krause Bottling Co. et al., 4 Cir., 92 F. 2d 272, 273.
Reo Motor Car Co. v. Traffic Motor Truck Corp., 55 App.D.C. 227, 4 F. 2d 303; Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co., 53 App.D.C. 348, 290 F. 323; Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. Theopold-Reid Co., 50 App.D.C. 200, 269 F. 716. Cf. Standard Oil Co. v. Independent Oil Men of America, 58 App.D.C. 372, 30 F. 2d 996.
Appellee’s mark may even be understood as attributing “pep” to the “Boys— Manny, Moe & Jack” and not their products. Cf. Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co., supra. Cf. McGraw-Hill Pub. Co. v. American Aviation Associates, 73 App.D.C. 131, 134, 117 F. 2d 293.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fawcett Publ'ns, Inc. v. Bronze Publ'ns, Inc., 173 F.2d 778 (5th Cir. 1949)
-
N. Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 228 F.2d 432 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
Authorities Cited
- McGraw-Hill Pub. Co., Inc. v. Am. Aviation Assocs., Inc., 117 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1940)
- Reo Motor Car Co. v. Traffic Motor Truck Corp., 4 F.2d 303 (D.C. Cir. 1925)
- Pepsi-Cola Co. v. Krause Bottling Co., 92 F.2d 272 (4th Cir. 1937)
- Standard Oil Co. v. Indep. Oil Men of Am., 30 F.2d 996 (D.C. Cir. 1929)