APPLICATION OF PREFORMED LINE PRODUCTS COMPANY

Decision Date14 November 1963
Docket NumberPatent Appeal No. 6993.
Citation323 F.2d 1007
PartiesApplication of PREFORMED LINE PRODUCTS COMPANY.
CourtU.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

George T. Mobille, Cushman, Darby & Cushman, Washington, D. C. (Gerrit P. Groen, Patrick H. Hume, Henry L. Brinks, Byron, Hume, Groen & Clement, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant.

Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.

Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges.

SMITH, Judge.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed (133 USPQ 623) the refusal of the examiner to register appellant's alleged mark "Preformed"1 on the Principal Register under section 2(f) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1052). The refusal to register the alleged mark was on the ground that the mark is merely descriptive and in the public domain as applied to applicant's goods and is therefore incapable of distinguishing such goods from like goods of others. This appeal raises the single issue as to the correctness of that holding.

The goods with which appellant uses the alleged mark are set forth in the amended application as:

"* * * accessories for electrical ropes, cables, strands, wires, and pole line hardware, armor rods and wires, splices, line guards, patch rods, tap armor, line splices, dead ends, telephone splints, splint and tie assemblies, lashing rods, conductor suspension systems, electrical splice shunts, spacers for parallel conductors, tangent supports and drop wire hangers * * *."

Appellant urges that the refusal to register its mark is not proper in view of certain proofs from which it argues that the mark has become distinctive through substantially exclusive use since about August 28, 1947. We have reviewed these proofs and have considered appellant's arguments relative thereto but are unable to find error in the position of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

As we said in Roselux Chem. Co., Inc. et al. v. Parsons Ammonia Co., Inc., 299 F.2d 855, 862, 49 CCPA 931, 941: "Distinctiveness means that the primary meaning of the word, in this limited field, is as a designation of source rather than of a characteristic of the product." The board has correctly pointed out that the word "Preformed" for which registration is sought is:

"* * * a normal use of the English language to describe such goods as applicant\'s armor rods, ropes, lines, wires, and other of its goods which have been helically shaped in advance. * * *"

While the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board relied upon dictionary definitions and usage of the word in certain patents to support the above quoted conclusion, we find it unnecessary to go beyond page 27 of appellant's brief to support the board's position. There in the description of its "Plastic Spacer Units PSU for Open Line Wire," we find that "The legs, helically preformed, assure absolute uniformity of each application." (Emphasis added.) This, it seems to us, indicates that the primary function, in this limited field, of the word for which registration is sought is in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 26, 1976
    ...deprive competing manufacturers of the product of the right to call an article by its name. See, accord, Application of Preformed Line Products Co., 323 F.2d 1007, 51 CCPA 775 (1963); Weiss Noodle Co. v. Golden Cracknel and Specialty Co., 290 F.2d 845, 48 CCPA 1004 (1961); Application of Se......
  • CES Pub. Corp. v. St. Regis Publications, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • December 31, 1975
    ...1080 (1960); Weiss Noodle Co. v. Golden Cracknel and Specialty Co., 290 F.2d 845, 48 CCPA 1004 (1961); Application of Preformed Line Products Co.,323 F.2d 1007, 51 CCPA 775 (1963); Application of G. D. Searle & Co., 360 F.2d 650, 53 CCPA 1192 (1966); Application of Deister Concentrator Co.,......
  • In re Uman Diagnostics AB
    • United States
    • United States Patent and Trademark Office. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
    • February 16, 2023
    ...(quoting CES Publ'g Corp. v. St. Regis Publ'ns, Inc., 531 F.2d 11, 188 U.S.P.Q. 612, 615 (2d Cir. 1975)); In re Preformed Prods. Co., 323 F.2d 1007, 139 U.S.P.Q. 271, 273 (CCPA 1963) (exclusive use, even when coupled with "large sales volume of such goods and its substantial advertising exp......
  • In re Cigna Intellectual Property, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Patent and Trademark Office. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
    • December 23, 2020
    ... ... remanded the application to the Examining Attorney for ... consideration of ... that is generic of a category or class of products where some ... but not all of the goods identified in ... know if it's right for your company?;" [ 11 ] (ii) ... "digital insurance" article ... Preformed Prods. Co. , 323 F.2d 1007, 139 U.S.P.Q. 271, ... 273 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT