
    453 F. 2d 768; 172 USPQ 364
    Studio Girl-Hollywood, Inc. v. H/P Consultants, Ltd.
    (No. 8628)
    United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
    January 20, 1972
    
      Lewis D. Konigsford,, attorney of record, for appellant.
    
      Edmundo D. Riedl, attorney or record, for appellee.
    [Oral argument December 10, 1971 by Mr. Konigsford and Mr. Riedl]
    Before Rich, Almond, Baldwin, and Lane, Associate Judges
    
   Baldwin, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

H/P Consultants,- Ltd. filed an application to register “Studio One” for a holding spray for men’s hair. The registration is opposed by Studio Girl-Hollywood, Inc., the holder of registrations of “Studio Girl” for face creams, facé powders, lipsticks, rouges, skin lotions, and nail polishés, and for shampoos.

There is no issue as to opposer’s prior use. Neither party has taken testimony. The board’s decision stated:

The marks “STUDIO GIRL” and “STUDIO ONE” have in common the word “STUDIO” but it is well established that marks must be considered in their entireties. The mark “STUDIO GIRL” taken as a whole connotes a person whereas “STUDIO ONE” would be indicative of a place such as a television or radio studio. In other words, the marks create different commercial impressions. In addition there are differences in both sound and appearance between these marks.

We agree with the board, and therefore find that the mark “Studio One,” when applied to appellee’s men’s hair sprays, does not so resemble appellant’s mark “Studio Girl” as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive within the meaning of 15 USC 1052(d). Accordingly, the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing the opposition is affirmed. 
      
       Application serial No. 253,198, filed August 26,1966.
     
      
       Registration No. 663,916, registered July 1,1958.
     
      
       Registration No. 675,710, registered March 17,1959.
     
      
       Abstracted at 158 USP3 830.
     