Legal Opinion

Clinton Detergent Company v. The Procter & Gamble Company

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 18, 1962No. Patent Appeal 6753PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, Judge.

The Clinton Detergent Company, appellant, applied to register the mark CAR JOY on the Principal Register for “combined cleansing and polishing materials.” 1 Use in interstate commerce since June 20, 1956, is asserted.

The Procter & Gamble Company, appellee, opposed the registration on the grounds of likelihood of confusion or deception of purchasers as to source or origin of the goods, citing its registrations of the single word JOY for “soap powder” 2 and for “sudsing- cleaner, cleanser and detergent, excepting soap in bar form.” 3 This latter registration is of the mark used on…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Shoe Corporation of America v. Juvenile Shoe Corporation of AmericaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
  2. United States Time Corporation v. Jacob Tennenbaum (Tennenbaum & Co., Telix Watch, Assignee, Substituted)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
  3. Societe Anonyme Marne Et Champagne v. Roger L. MyersCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Pizzeria Uno Corporation v. James W. Temple, Jr., D/B/A Taco UnoCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984
  2. Yamaha International Corporation v. Hoshino Gakki Co., Ltd., Assignee of Hoshino Gakki Ten Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
  3. Citibank, N.A. v. Citibanc Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
  4. In Re Loew's Theatres, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
  5. Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol IncorporatedCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API