¶1Trade-marks and trade-names and unfair competition <©=>59(5), 61 — Trade-mark “O. D. O.” for limiment held not similar to mark [‘Odol” on preparation for teeth, mouth, and breath, and not infringement, since goods were different.
¶2Trade-mark “O. D. O.” for liniment to be applied externally held not in conflict with trademark “Odol” for preparation for teeth, mouth, and breath, since goods on which marks were used are not of same descriptive properties, nor were marks so similar as to lead to confusion in trade.
¶3Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
¶4Interference proceeding between the Odol Corporation and Ottavio De Oto. Decision for the latter, and the former appeals.
¶5Affirmed.
¶6Louis Alexander, of New York City, for appellant.
¶7C. A. O’Brien and B. F. Garvey, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
¶8Before MAETIN, Chief Justice, and EOBB and VAN OESDEL, Associate Justices.-
¶10The Odol Corporation filed an opposition against the registration of “O. D. O.” as a trademark for liniment to be applied externally. The mark of the opposer is “Odol,” used as a trade-mark on a preparation for “the teeth, mouth, and breath.”’
¶11We agree with the Commissioner of Patents that the goods on which the marks are used are. not of the same descriptive properties, and that the marks are not so similar as to lead to confusion in trade.
¶12The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.