¶157 CCPA
¶2*461Goldman & Moller, G. Turner Moller, Edward L. Goldman, Washington, D. C., Robert N. Roley, Birmingham, Michigan, attorneys of record, for appellant.
¶3Irons, Birch, Swindler & McKie, John R. Swindler, Washington, D. C., for ap-pellee.
¶4Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and RAO, Chief Judge, sitting by designation.
¶6Southern Enterprises, Inc., d. b. a. The Whopper-Burger Shop, appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board1 granting the petition of Burger King of Florida, Inc., brought under section 14 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1064), to cancel Southern’s registration 2 of “Whoppaburger” for “sandwiches.”
¶7The board granted cancellation on the basis of Burger King’s prior use of “Whopper” in connection with its sales of burger-type sandwiches in its Burger King restaurants as well as its service-mark registration3 of “Home of the Whopper” for drive-in restaurant services,4 concluding:
In our opinion the use of “Whoppa-burger” by respondent in connection with sandwiches concurrently with petitioner’s use of “Whopper” and “Home of the Whopper” in connection with the sale of hamburger sandwiches is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception. …
¶8Southern does not — indeed, cannot — seriously question Burger King’s *462priority of use of either “Whopper” or “Home of the Whopper” in connection with the sale of burger-type sandwiches. Nor does it question the board’s conclusion that the goods are substantially the same. Rather Southern urges that the board erred in considering the use by Burger King of the expression “Whopper” at all. In Southern’s view, Burger King did not prove the trademark usage of “Whopper” which it alleged in its petition for cancellation, and thus did not establish that the registration sought to be cancelled will cause Burger King any damage.
¶9Appellee’s case here, however, does not depend on its proving that it made trademark use of the expression “Whopper.” It is sufficient if we find a likelihood of confusion between “Whoppaburger” and appellee’s registered service mark “Home of the Whopper.”
¶10 Turning to that question, we have- considered Southern’s arguments that “Whoppaburger” and “Home of the Whopper” differ in appearance, sound and meaning; that “Home of the Whopper” is a “weak” mark; and that it is somehow “significant” that no evidence of actual confusion has been adduced by Burger King. Those arguments; however, do not convince us of error in the board’s decision. We are satisfied that purchasers familiar with appellee’s drive-in restaurants operating under the service mark “Home of the Whopper” wherein “Whopper” burger-type sandwiches are sold 5 would, on encountering appellant’s “Whoppaburger” sandwiches, be likely to assume by reason of confusion, mistake or deception that a common source or origin existed. It is not necessary, of course, to demonstrate actual confusion in trade' in order to establish a likelihood thereof. Salem Commodities, Inc. v. Miami Margarine Co., 44 CCPA 932, 244 F.2d 729, 114 USPQ 124 (1957).
¶11The decision is affirmed.
¶12Affirmed.