APPLICATION OF MILLER INTERNATIONAL CO.

(e) Consists of a mark which, (1) when applied to the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, * * * »»

Section 45 of the Lanham Act, (15 U.S.C. § 1127), states in part:

“ * * * The term ‘Trade-mark’ includes any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods and distinguish them from those manufactured or sold by others. * * * ”

The only question here is whether the composite mark as a whole is a trademark capable of identifying applicant’s goods and distinguishing them from the goods of others.

It is noted that the only statutory test of what constitutes a trademark is whether the word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof which makes up the trademark identifies the goods to which it is applied and distinguishes such goods from those manufactured and sold by others. Pictorial symbols and devices, such as those present in the mark in issue, can and do function as trademarks and are entitled to be registered if they otherwise meet the terms and conditions of the Lanham Act. See In re Kotzin, 47 CCPA 852, 276 F. 2d 411.

Inspection of the composite mark here in issue shows that the words “STEREO-FIDELITY” are an integral part of it. Thus, except by close inspection and careful dissection, it is not possible to separate the words from the whole mark as a separately identifiable entity. We do not agree with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that such a composite mark “is dominated by the merely descriptive word feature thereof”. We think the mark as a whole is, in fact, capable of identifying and distinguishing appellant’s goods from those manufactured or sold by others.

Our attention has been directed to numerous prior decisions which are urged upon us as supporting the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. We have carefully considered these cases but as we have had occasion to observe many times in the past, prior decisions in trademark cases are of little help in deciding cases involving different marks and different facts. Each case must be decided on its own facts and issues. Jerry Finn v. Cooper’s Incorporated, 292 F. 2d 555, 48 CCPA 1132.

The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is therefore reversed.

Reversed.

WORLEY, Chief Judge (dissenting). I am unable to find any reversible error in the board’s reasoning or conclusion.1 I would, therefore, affirm.

. Ser. No. 56,565, filed Aug. 4,1958.

. 130 USPQ 369.