This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, speaking through the Examiner-in-iChief, in an opposition proceeding brought under the Trade-Mark Act of 1905, now 15 U.S.C.A. § 1052 et seq.
Appellee, Kres-Kno Oil Burner Manufacturing Company, Inc., hereinafter referred to as applicant, filed its application in the United States Patent Office for registration of the mark “Pow-R-Matic” for use on oil burners for domestic and industrial use, on April 14, 1947, claiming use of that mark since April 12, 1939, Appellant, Eureka Williams Corporation, hereinafter referred to as opposer, based *764its opposition to said application on prior use of the trade-mark “Oil-O-Matic” for use on liquid fuel burning devices, automatic electrically controlled and operated fuel heating systems,- including the electrically operated controls therefor, and domestic water heaters; and also on the registered mark “Air-O-Matic” for use on air conditioning systems, and heating, cooling, and dehumidifying units for air conditioning systems and parts thereof.
It is conceded that opposer is prior in use of its mark; The only testimony taken was on its behalf.
It appears that the sales of Oil-O-Matic oil burners are of an "extensive nature in this country as well as in numerous foreign countries; that substantial sums of money have been and are being expended in advertising that , product; and that the sales óf opposer’s Air-O-Matic products, at the time testimony was taken, have been made only iri four states and the District of Columbia.
The Examiner of Interferences, in sustaining the opposition, stated “since the goods here involved manifestly are closely related, if not in part competitive, goods of the same descriptive properties, the only remaining statutory issue to be determined herein is whether or not the marks of the parties bear such near resemblance as to be likely, when applied to such goods, to cause confusion in trade,” and held that the concurrent use of the marks would be reasonably likely to create confusion in trade.
■ In reaching that conclusion, the examiner relied on the case of Cross v. Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corporation,'48 F.2d 659, 18 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1192, where the marks “Coal-O-Mátic” and- “Oil-O-Matic” used on fuel burning devices, were held to be confusingly similar. He also took a similar view of two decisions of the Commissioner of Patents1 in which the marks “Insta-Matic” and “Oil-O-Matic” and “Scald-OMatic” and “Oil-O-Matic,” used on goods of the same class, were held, respectively, to be confusingly similar., It was his belief that the facts in those cases were sufficiently similar to the instant case as to be controlling.
Upon appeal, the Examiner-in-Chief reversed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences, basing such action on the authority of the decision of the Commissioner in the case of Eureka Williams Corporation v. Willoughby Machine and Tool Co., 636 O.G. 1092, 86 USPQ 170, where it was held that the marks “Thermo-matic” and “Oil-O-Matic” were not confusingly similar. He also relied on the authority of this court’s decisions in the cases of Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corp. v. Bliss, 54 F.2d 430, 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 821, and Syncromatic Air Conditioning Corp. v. Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating. Corp., 109 F.2d 784, 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1010. In those cases the marks “Thermatic” and “Oil-O-Matic” and “Syn-cromatic” and “Air-O-Matic,” respectively, were held not to be confusingly similar.
It is to be noted, however, that the decision of the commissioner in the Willoughby case, supra, was in turn reversed by al divided opinion of this court. Eureka Williams Corporation v. Willoughby Machine and Tool Company, 194 F.2d 543, 544, 39 C.C.P.A., Patents, 832.
While in that case two members of this court disagreed with the conclusion of the majority that the mark “Thermomatic” was confusingly similar to the mark “Oil-O-Matic,” there, was no disagreement over the following language found in that opinion:
“This court has repeatedly held that because of the difference of facts in various cited cases, such cases are without controlling value here, except as to the principles of trade-mark law. enunciated or exemplified therein. On the latter basis, however, this and other federal courts have always had, and will continue to have, recourse to such citations.”
It is our belief that the facts in the several cases cited are not applicable to those .found herein and, consequently, are not controlling.
*765The only issue involved is whether the concurrent use of appellee’s mark “Pow-R-Matic” and appellant’s marks “Oil-O-Matic” and “Air-O-Matic” on the respective goods of the parties are likely to cause confusion within the purview of section 5 of the Trade-Mark Act of 1905, now 15 U.S.C.A. § 1052, the pertinent portion of which reads:
“ * * * Provided, That trade marks which are identical with a registered or known trade mark owned and in use by another and appropriated to merchandise of the same descriptive properties, or which so nearly resemble a registered or known trade mark owned and in use by another and appropriated to merchandise of the same descriptive properties as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or to deceive purchasers shall not be registered: * *. ”
While it is true that the marks “Pow-R-Matic” and “Oil-O-Matic” are hyphenated, possess the same suffixes, contain the same number of syllables and, indeed, the same number of letters, it is our opinion that the prefixes are so different in spelling, in sound, in appearance, and in meaning that, when viewed in their entireties, as they must be viewed, the concurrent use of such marks would not be likely to cause confusion in trade or deception in the mind of the public as to the origin of the involved products.
We are also of the opinion the same conclusion should be reached relative to the marks “Pow-R-Matic” and “Air-O-Matic,” especially in view of the fact that those marks are applied to goods which are not as closely related as are the goods to which the marks “Pow-R-Matic” and “Oil-O-Matic” are applied.
For the foregoing reasons the decision of the commissioner is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corporation v. Geo. D. Roper Corporation, 17 U.S.Pat.Q. 177 and Eureka Williams Corporation v. Coan, 79 USPQ 354.