STUDIO GIRL-HOLLYWOOD, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
H/P CONSULTANTS, LTD., 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 the marks 'Studio Girl' and 'Studio One' do not create a likelihood of confusion as to the source of goods, despite sharing the word 'Studio'.
H/P Consultants, Ltd. applied to register 'Studio One' for hair spray. Studio Girl-Hollywood, Inc. opposed, holding registrations for 'Studio Girl' fo…
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 15 U.S.C. § 1052(D) cases and more on FLexlaw
BALDWIN, Judge.
H/P Consultants, Ltd. filed an application1 to register “Studio One” for a holding spray for men’s hair. The registration is opposed by Studio Girl-Hollywood, Inc., the holder of registrations of “Studio Girl” for face creams, face powders, lipsticks, rouges, skin lotions and nail polishes,2 and for shampoos.3
There is no issue as to opposer’s prior use. Neither party has taken testimony. The board’s decision stated:
The marks “STUDIO GIRL” and “STUDIO ONE” have in common the word “STUDIO” but it is well established that marks must be considered in their entireties. The mark “STUDIO GIRL” taken as a whole connotes a person whereas “STUDIO ONE” would be indicative of a place such as a television or radio studio. In other words, the marks create different commercial impressions. In addition there are differences in both sound and appearance between these marks.
We agree with the board, and therefore find that the mark “Studio One,” when applied to appellee’s men’s hair sprays, does not so resemble appellant’s mark “Studio Girl” as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). Accordingly, the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 4 dismissing the opposition is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Application serial No. 253,198, filed August 26, 1966.
. Registration No. 663,916, registered July 1, 1958.
. Registration No. 675,710, registered March 17, 1959.
. Abstracted at 158 USI’Q 830.