Application of Yazaki Corporation, 437 F.2d 1406 (C.C.P.A. 1971)

Yazaki Corporation appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board¹  affirming the examiner's refusal to register the following trademark²  on the Principal Register:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

The issue is whether appellant's mark "so resembles a mark registered in the Patent Office * * * as to be likely, when applied to the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive * * *." 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). The examiner and board cited the previously registered mark "Arrow `102'",³  observed that the goods of the respective parties would normally be sold in automobile accessories stores for use on automobiles, and concluded that confusion or mistake as to source would be likely. The board stated:

Considering the marks, it is apparent that the word "ARROW" is the essential feature of applicant's mark and it is not seen how the number "102" or the auxiliary features of applicant's mark can serve to distinguish between these marks. Further, the mere fact that various other parties have registered the word "ARROW" is insufficient to show that this word is in common usage as a trademark. * * *

It is concluded that applicant's mark so resembles "ARROW `102'" that, as applied to applicant's goods there would be a likelihood of confusion or mistake.

Appellant's arguments here — that the goods, channels of trade, potential consumers and the marks themselves are totally dissimilar, and that the "ARROW" component of the two marks is a "weak" mark entitled to little scope of protection — are but a reiteration of those urged below and fully considered by the board. We have considered those arguments and the cited cases, including Arrow Distilleries, Inc. v. Globe Brewing Company, 117 F.2d 347 (4th Cir. 1941), but are not persuaded there is reversible error in the decision below. The board's finding that the channels of trade and class of purchasers would ordinarily be the same, uncontradicted by any evidence to the contrary, seems wholly reasonable. We are satisfied that the respective marks bear sufficiently close resemblance in appearance, sound and connotation that, when applied to goods of this sort in the automotive field, confusion or mistake as to origin of the goods is likely. Accordingly, the decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.