Appellant asks us to reverse the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board which sustained an opposition by registrantappellee, to appellant’s application for registration of “GUARDIAN” for
“Outdoor Type Electric Lighting Fixtures Especially Useful for Illuminating Service Areas of Automobile Service Stations, Lamp Holders for Spot and Flood Lamps, Units, and Poles for Supporting lighting Fixtures.”
The opposition is based on opposer’s prior use and registration1 of “GUARDIAN” for
“Electromagnets, Relays, Solenoids, and Switches, which are generally referred to in the trade as Unitary Electrical Components, adapted for Various uses in industry.”
The sole question here, as below, is whether concurrent use of the identical mark “GUARDIAN” on the goods enumerated in the registration and application is likely to result in confusion of purchasers within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1052(d). That act allows registration of a mark otherwise qualified unless it “Consists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the Patent Office or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when applied to the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers * * *.” That is the test.
The record, consisting of nearly five hundred pages, contains the testimony of two witnesses for appellant, three for appellee, together with their cross-examination, eighty exhibits, and one hundred and two third-party registrations of the trademark “GUARDIAN” used alone and in conjunction with other words covering products ranging from asbestos to valves.
We take the liberty of quoting the following excerpts from the board’s decision :
“Opposer’s products comprise electrical components such as switches, solenoids and relays which are primarily sold to manufacturers of electrical parts or machines, but which *544are also sold to electronic parts jobbers and distributors. During the period 1948 through 1957, opposer expended approximately $846,000 in' advertising electrical components under the mark ‘GUARDIAN’ utilizing trade journals, brochures, catalogues, and the like.
“Applicant’s products comprise lighting equipment for illuminating the pump islands and adjacent areas of gasoline service stations and the exteriors of service station buildings. These products are primarily sold to the oil and petroleum industry and the gasoline service station trade but sales are also made to electrical wholesalers and electrical contractors. Applicant advertises these products in trade journals directed to the gasoline marketing trade. Applicant also makes sign lighting units for outdoor signs which it sells directly to outdoor advertising companies.
“There is no doubt but that the products are specifically different. While the ultimate users of the products are not the same, the record indicates that these products are or can be sold through wholesalers of electrical goods. The question presented is whether this class of purchasers is likely to assume that electrical components such as relays, solenoids, and switches, on the one hand, and, outdoor type lighting equipment, on the other, sold under the same mark originate with the same producer. This question is answered by the record.”
After citing numerous instances of actual confusion resulting from concurrent use of the mark on the respective goods, thé board concluded that
“There is no doubt that confusion or mistake as to source is likely to result, since it has, in fact, resulted.”
This is not a situation where the same mark is sought for use on wholly unrelated goods, such as, for example, ladies’ hosiery and farm machinery. On the contrary, applicant seeks to appropriate the identical mark for products which have too much in common with those products being marketed under the same name by the registrant. We agree with the board that under such circumstances concurrent use is not only likely to result in purchaser confusion but has actually so resulted. We are not impressed with appellant’s attempts to minimize those instances.
Full consideration has been accorded appellant’s arguments and citations but they fail to convince us that the board erred in sustaining the opposition.
Affirmed.
. Reg. No. 570,073 issued February 10, 1953.