
    FRENCH BATTERY & CARBON CO. v. PREST-O-LITE CO., Inc. PREST-O-LITE CO., Inc., v. FRENCH BATTERY & CARBON CO.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted March 9, 1920.
    Decided May 3, 1920.)
    Nos. 1294, 1299.
    Trade-marks and trade-names —Proposed trade-mark held confusing as to storage batteries, but not as to lights.
    The trade-mark “Ray-O-Lito,” applied to storage batteries, would be apt to be confused with the trade-mark “Prest-O-Lite,” when applied to such batteries,' so that its registration as a trade-mark for storage, batteries was properly refused; but where it appeared that other concerns had registered trade-marks for electric lamps as near “Prest-O-Lito” as •Tlay-O-Lite,” it was proper to permit registration of “Ray-O-Lite” as a trade-mark for electric lamps.
    <g=»For other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
    Application by the French Battery & Carbon Company for registra! ioii of a trade-mark, opposed by the Prest-O-Lite Company, Incorporated. From a decision denying registration of the mark in con; nection with storage batteries, but permitting it as to electric lamps, both parties appeal.
    Affirmed'.
    D. B. Cheever, of Chicago, 111. (Cheever &- Cox, of Chicago, 111., on the brief), for applicant.
    E. W. Bradford, of Washington, D. C., opposed.
   ROBB, Associate Justice.

These appeals are from a decision of the Patent Office sustaining the opposition of the Prest-O-Lite Company, Incorporated, to the registration by the French Battery & Carlton Company of the words “Ray-O-Lite,” in connection with the sale of storage batteries, and permitting such registration as to electric lamps. The French Battery & Carbon Company appeals from the former ruling, while the Prest-O-Lite Company, Incorporated, appeals from the latter.

When “Ray- O-Lite” was adopted in 1917, “Prest-O-Lite” had been in extensive ttse on storage batteries by the Prest-O-Lite Company, Incorporated, for several years, and many thousands of dollars had been expended in advertising these batteries. We agree with the Commissioner that the registration of “Ray-O-Lite” for use on storage batteries would be likely to cause confusion. Thomas Mfg. Co. v. Æolian Co., 47 App. D. C. 376. But since it appears that, before the. Prest-O-Idte Company extended its business to include storage batteries, other concerns had registered marks for electric lamps, which, as found by the Commissioner, “are about as near to ‘Prest-O-Lite’ as is ‘Ray-O-Uite,’ ” we also agree with the Commissioner that the Prest-O-Dite Company is not in a position to prevent the registration of “Blay-O-Lite” for use on-electric lamps. Alaska Packers’ Ass’n v. Admiralty Trading Co., 43 App. D. C. 198.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

Affirmed.  