## Facts

- A leather tanner opposed registration of the mark “NUHIDE” sought for “dungarees” by a garment manufacturer.
- The applicant’s goods were western-style dungarees made of cotton and did not contain leather.
- The opposer argued “NUHIDE” would be understood as “new hide” (or “gnu hide”) and would misrepresent that the goods were made of hide/leather.
- The opposition alleged the mark was deceptive under Lanham Act § 2(a) and deceptively misdescriptive under § 2(e)(1).
- The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the opposition, finding consumers understand dungarees as cotton garments and chaps as leather garments, making deception unlikely.
- The opposer appealed to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether “NUHIDE,” used on cotton dungarees, is deceptive under Lanham Act § 2(a) because it allegedly misrepresents the goods as leather or hide.
2. Whether “NUHIDE,” used on cotton dungarees, is deceptively misdescriptive under Lanham Act § 2(e)(1) for the same reason.
3. Whether prior decisions involving “-HYDE” marks for leather-simulating plastic goods required refusal of registration here.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the dismissal of the opposition and allowed registration.
- “NUHIDE” for dungarees was held not deceptive under § 2(a) and not deceptively misdescriptive under § 2(e)(1).
- The court agreed that ordinary purchasers understand dungarees to be cotton garments and are not likely to believe they are leather chaps or contain leather because of the mark.
- Prior “leather-suggestive” cases were distinguished because those marks were used on leather substitutes designed to simulate leather, unlike dungarees.

## Legal Principles

- A mark containing “hide” or leather-suggestive wording is not automatically deceptive or deceptively misdescriptive when used on non-leather goods.
- Deceptiveness and deceptive misdescriptiveness turn on likely consumer understanding in context, including common knowledge about the nature of the goods.
- Decisions finding deception for leather-suggestive marks on leather-simulating materials do not control when the goods are not leather substitutes and are widely understood to be made of different materials.

## Conclusion

The court held that, given the common understanding that dungarees are cotton garments and chaps are leather, “NUHIDE” was not likely to mislead purchasers about material composition and therefore was registrable under the Lanham Act.


Steinberg Bros., Inc. v. New England Overall Co., 377 F.2d 1004 (C.C.P.A. 1967)