
    WILLIAM A. ROGERS, LIMITED, v. INTERNATIONAL SILVER COMPANY (2).
    A trademark applied to silver-plated ware, consisting of the words “Wm. A. Rogers A. I.” followed by a horseshoe inclosing the letter “R,” is not so deceptively similar to the mark “Wm. Rogers, Mfg. Co.” and “Wm. Rogers & Son,” as to justify the Commissioner of Patents in rejecting an application for its registration, where it appears that both parties are entitled to use the word “Rogers.”
    No. 587.
    Patent Appeals.
    Submitted January 11, 1910.
    Decided February 01, 1910.
    
      Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents sustaining an opposition to the registration of the trademark.
    
      Reversed.
    
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. Charles H. Duell, Mr. Frederic P. Warfield, and Mr. Holland 8. Duell for the appellant.
    
      Mr. John P. Bartlett and Mr. George H. Mitchell for the appellee.
   Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This case involves the same parties as the preceding case [No. 585, ante, 410]. Appellant’s mark herein, however, is “Wm. A. Rogers A. I.,” followed by a horseshoe inclosing the letter “R.” Appellee contends that this mark is deceptively similar to its marks “Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co.” and “Wm Rogers & Son.” We think the accessories employed by appellant in its use of the word “Rogers” reasonably differentiate its mark from appellee’s. William A. Rogers, as appears in case'No. 585,, was the predecessor of appellant, and is now its manager. The use, therefore, of the mark herein involved is not without reason. The goods sold under such mark would probably be known as the “Horseshoe Brand.” At all events, the mark in its entirety is not readily to be confused with the marks of appellee.

The decision is reversed, and the clerk will certify this opinion as by law required. Reversed.  