HOUSE OF WORSTED-TEX, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ENRO SHIRT COMPANY, INC., APPELLEE
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 is no likelihood of confusion between the trademarks 'Ivycasual' and 'Ivy League Model' for men's and boys' clothing, thus allowing registration.
House of Worsted-Tex, Inc. opposed Enro Shirt Company's application to register the trademark 'Ivycasual' for shirts and pajamas. Opposer relied on it…
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 Trademark Opposition cases and more on FLexlaw
MARTIN, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences which dismissed the opposition of appellant, House of Worsted-Tex, Inc., to the registration of the trademark “Ivycasual” for “Dress, Negligee and Sport Shirts and Pajamas for Men and Boys.”
Applicant, Enro Shirt Company, Inc., a Kentucky corporation located in Louisville, Kentucky, filed application Ser. No. 689,558 on June 15, 1955, claiming use of “Ivycasual” from May 1, 1955, the mark was published on March 27, 1956, and opposition was filed on April 13, 1956. Applicant contested the opposition below and prevailed but in this court it has neither appeared nor filed a brief.
Opposer took the testimony of one witness at the taking of whose testimony the applicant was, by choice, not represented. The record made by the opposer shows that it relies on a trademark registration, No. 371,524, of “Ivy League Model,” the words being surrounded by a rectangular line border, and apparently on claimed exclusive rights in the clothing field of the simple term “Ivy League.”
We are this day deciding two other appeals by the same opposer based on the same alleged rights, appeals Nos. 6610 and 6611, against Superba Cravats, Inc., 284 F. 2d 528, wherein we have set forth reasons for affirming the dismissal of the oppositions, which are as applicable to the instant case as they are in those appeals.
For the reasons stated in the other appeals, we are of the opinion that there is no likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception of purchasers if applicant’s mark “Ivycasual” is used on the goods above mentioned as to preclude registration.
The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- House OF Worsted-Tex, Inc. v. Superba Cravats, Inc., 284 F.2d 528 (C.C.P.A. 1960)