
    390 F. 2d 754; 156 USPQ 401
    Cluett, Peabody & Co., Ino. v. J. H. Bonck Company, Inc.
    (No. 7899)
    United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
    February 1, 1968
    
      Robert J. Dockery, Leo Romero for appellant.
    [Oral argument January 4,1968 by Mr. Dockery ; appellee submits on record]
    ^Before Rich:, Acting Chief Judge, and Judges Smith, Almond, Kirkpatrick
    
    
      
      Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
    
   Ktrkpateick, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Cluett, Peabody seeks registration of “TTM” and certain ancillary design matter for “Boys’ Shirts.” The Bonck Co., relying on prior use and .registration of “T.M.T.” on shirts and pants, opposes, alleging that applicant’s “TTM” so resembles “T.M.T.” as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sustained opposer’s position, both initially and on reconsideration. We agree..

In its consideration, the board stated:

The marks .“TTM” and “T.M.T.” comprise arbitrary arrangements of iden-. tieal letters, an'd considering the difficulty of retaining such marks in mind over ,an appreciable period of time, we are clearly of the opinion that their use for ■identical goods would be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. cf. Vitamin Corporation of America v. American Home Products Corporation, [35 CCPA 952, 166.P. 2d 203] 76 USPQ 611 * * * ; and Crystal Corporation, formerly the Crystal Chemical Company, Incorporated v. Manhattan Chemical Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Anna T. Fox, Assignee, Substituted), [22 CCPA 1027, 75 P. 2d 506] 25 USPQ 5 * ⅜ ⅜. As stated by the court in the last cited .case
We .think it is well known that it is more difficult to remember a series of arbitrarily arranged letters than it is to remember figures, syllables or phrases. The difficulty of remembering such lettered marks makes confusion between such marks, when similar, more likely.

We have also reviewed, in light of appellant’s arguments, the testi-jnony of its witnesses, together with the documents and third party registrations submitted, but are not persuaded that the board erred.

The decision is affirmed.

SMITH, /., concurs in the result.  