Warner-Hudnut, Inc. (Warner-Lambert Pharm. Co., Substituted) v. Wander Co., 280 F.2d 435 (C.C.P.A. 1960). · Go Syfert
Search
Warner-Hudnut, Inc. (Warner-Lambert Pharm. Co., Substituted) v. Wander Co., 280 F.2d 435 (C.C.P.A. 1960). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States Surgical Corp. v. Orris, Inc. (ksd, 1998-06-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States Surgical Corp. v. Orris, Inc.
D. Kan. · 1998 · confidence medium
Surgeons constitute a “highly intelligent-and discriminating public.” Wamer-Hudnut, Inc. v. Wander Co., 47 C.C.P.A. 1172 , 280 F.2d 435, 436 (Cust.&Pat.App.l960); see also Astra Pharmaceutical, 718 F.2d at 1206-07 . “[S]o-phistication is important and often dispositive because sophisticated consumers may be expected to exercise greater care.” Electronic Design, 954 F.2d at 718 (citing Pignons S.A. de Mecanique de Precision v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482, 489 (1st Cir.1981)) (internal quotations and alterations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Citrus Group, Inc. v. Cadbury Beverages, Inc.
D. Maryland · 1991 · confidence medium
As the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals stated in Warner-Hudnut, Inc. v. Wander Co., 280 F.2d 435, 436 (U.S.Ct. of Customs and Patent Appeals 1960), “[i]n determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists between trademarks ‘the judgment of the eye and ear is more satisfactory than evidence from any other source.’ ” (quoting Glenmore Distilleries Co. v. National Distillers Products Corp., 23 F.Supp. 928, 931 (DC Va.1938), aff'd, 101 F.2d 479 (4th Cir.1939), cert. denied, 307 U.S. 632 , 59 S.Ct. 835 , 83 L.Ed. 1515 (1939)).
discussed Cited "see" In re McGinley (2×)
C.C.P.A. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Warner-Hudnut, Inc. v. Wander Co., 280 F.2d 435 , 47 CCPA 1172, 126 USPQ 411 (1960); Vandenburgh, Trademark Law and Procedure 141 (2d ed. 1968) and cases cited.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dan River Mills, Incorporated v. The Yorke Shirt Corporation
C.C.P.A. · 1968 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Warner-Hudnut, Inc. v. Wander Co., 280 F.2d 435 , 47 CCPA 1172 (1960), where, based on an opinion by Judge Kirkpatrick, we affirmed a holding that confusion was not likely between “Wander” and “Warner.” The opinion says: It did not require evidence to enable the Assistant Commissioner to conclude that Wander is a common word and unlikely to create a surname impression and that Warner, although having a common meaning, albeit one seldom met with [one who warns], creates the impression of being a surname.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
WARNER-HUDNUT, INC. (Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical Company, Substituted)
v.
WANDER COMPANY
Patent Appeal 6533.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Jul 20, 1960.
280 F.2d 435
Arnold B. Christen, Washington, D. C., of counsel, for appellant., Davis, Lindsey, Hibben & Noyes, Albert W. Bicknell, Chicago, Ill. (George N. Hibben, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee.
Worley, Rich, Martin, Smith, Kirkpatrick.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
KIRKPATRICK, Judge.

The appellant, Warner-Hudnut, Inc., filed a petition for cancellation of the ap-pellee’s registered trademark, “Wander.” The Assistant Commissioner .affirmed the examiner’s dismissal of the petition to cancel and this appeal followed.

The question presented by the appeal is a very simple one and, although counsel have managed to pile up more than 400 pages of record and 80 pages of brief, we think it can be dealt with in a very few paragraphs. The question is simply whether “Wander,” applied to a drug used chiefly in the treatment of tuberculosis, is likely to cause confusion with “Warner,” used for a. wide range of pharmaceuticals. The Assistant Commissioner decided that it was not. We agree.

Warner has used its trademark extensively since 1920, has spent large sums on advertising and enjoys a very valuable goodwill, symbolized by the mark which has acquired a secondary meaning in the field of pharmaceuticals. Wander has used its trademark (which was, in fact, the surname of the founder of the business) since 1951 for the tuberculosis remedy, known as “P.A.S.” These facts were taken into consideration by the As-, sistant Commissioner in reaching her decision as appears from her opinion.

The appellant complains of a number of errors on the part of the Assistant Commissioner, the chief ones being that the conclusions reached by her as to the connotations of the words were not supported by enough evidence [1] but were intuitive or subjective. We think that her conclusions would have been proper had there been no evidence at all. It did not require evidence to enable the Assistant[*436] Commissioner to conclude that Wander is a common word and unlikely to create a surname impression and that Warner, although having a common meaning, albeit one seldom met with, creates the impression of being a surname.

In determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists between trademarks “the judgment of the eye and ear is more satisfactory than evidence from any other source.” Glenmore Distilleries Co. v. National Distillers Products Corp., D.C.E.D.Va., 23 F.Supp. 928, 931, affirmed 4 Cir., 101 F.2d 479. See Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. Finzer, 128 U.S. 182, 9 S.Ct. 60, 32 L.Ed. 395. These two marks perhaps look somewhat alike but not enough to be confusingly similar, and they do not sound alike. Both parties direct their advertising entirely to physicians and pharmacists — a highly intelligent and discriminating public. The evidence presented fell far short of overcoming the “judgment of the eye and ear.”

Affirmed.

1

. As one authority for this proposition the appellant cited General Shoe Corp. v. Lerner Bros. Mfg. Co., Inc., 254 F.2d 154, 45 CCPA 872. If that opinion be read, it will be seen that the reason why the Commissioner was reversed was that be had relied on too much evidence.