Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chaussures Bally Societe Anonyme De Fabrication v. Dial Shoe Company, Inc.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 20, 1965No. Patent Appeal 7375Published

1DissentSmith, Judge

The admittedly subjective nature of the consideration we must give to the marks BALLY and LA VALLI, when applied to identical goods, surrounds resolution of the issue with considerable ■doubt. Visually, the marks are sufficiently different that confusion on that basis would not be likely. But there is more here than mere visual dissimilarity. The words sound alike, and both are arbitrary terms as applied to women’s shoes. The mark BALLY was an established mark in this field when appellee entered the market. Under these circumstances, I would .resolve doubt against the newcomer, see Polymer…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Coral Chemical Company v. H. D. T. Company Factors, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
  2. The Polymer Corporation v. Dayco Corporation, by Change of Name From the Dayton Rubber CompanyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API