(concurring).
The similarity between “Two Feathers” and “Three Feathers” is so close that when they are spoken as trademarks they will sound alike and will be likely to create confusion, mistake and purchaser deception when used on related goods. This fact makes it unnecessary to here consider the futher visual embellishments shown in appellee’s com-posit mark. The goods of both parties are such that spoken marks will be used to call for and designate the goods of the respective parties.
For the reasons more fully stated in Hollywood Water Heater Co. v. Holly-matic Corp., 274 F.2d 679, 47 CCPA 782. I do not consider the asserted differences in the goods to which the respective marks are applied to be determinative of the issue here. I agree with the majority that the goods of the parties are so related that “the average purchaser would be justified in assuming and would be likely to assume that the goods are of common origin.”
While prior decisions are of dubious value in deciding the issue of likelihood of confusion in a case such as the present, the rationale of Castle & Cooke, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 346 F.2d 621, 52 CCPA 1425, seems to me to require a reversal of the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.