Glamorene Products Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co.
| Decision Date | 12 August 1976 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 76-576. |
| Citation | 538 F.2d 894 |
| Parties | GLAMORENE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Mark N. Donohue, Russell H. Falconer, Brumbaugh, Graves, Donohue & Raymond, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellant; Melvin H. Kurtz, New York City, of counsel.
John W. Melville, John D. Hayes, Melville, Strasser, Foster & Hoffman, Cincinnati, Ohio, attorneys of record, for appellee; John J. Cummins, Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE AND MILLER, Associate Judges.
This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board)1 sustaining appellee's opposition against appellant's application for registration of the mark BOUNCE BACK and dismissing appellant's counterclaim in the same opposition proceeding.2 We affirm.
Glamorene Products Corporation (Glamorene) filed an application to register BOUNCE BACK for a cleaning composition in aerosol form for cleaning rugs, asserting that the mark was first used on August 26, 1971.
Registration was opposed by The Procter & Gamble Company (P & G), the owner of registration No. 819,633 for the mark BOUNCE for a dry cleaning detergent. This registration issued November 29, 1966 to Cowles Chemical Company, a subsidiary of Stauffer Chemical Company (Stauffer). It was assigned to Stauffer and subsequently reassigned, on October 20, 1971, to P & G.
As grounds for opposition, P & G alleged that P & G and its predecessors in business had continuously used the mark BOUNCE for a dry cleaning detergent since January 6, 1966, that P & G in its own behalf adopted and began using the mark BOUNCE for a fabric softener on May 19, 1971, and that Glamorene's mark so resembled that of P & G as to be likely, when applied to Glamorene's goods, to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive.
Glamorene counterclaimed for cancellation of P & G's registration No. 819,633, alleging that the assignment from Stauffer to P & G was an assignment in gross and that no rights were transferred thereby from Stauffer to P & G. Glamorene alternatively requested that its mark be registered for the State of California, alleging first use in that state. An application for registration as a concurrent user was filed together with this request for alternative relief.
The board sustained the opposition by P & G, refused registration to Glamorene, and dismissed Glamorene's counterclaim.
OPINIONThis appeal presents three issues for our consideration: (1) whether the assignment of registration No. 819,633 for the mark BOUNCE for a dry cleaning detergent from Stauffer to P & G was an assignment in gross, i. e., the naked assignment of a bare mark, and therefore ineffective; (2) whether the contemporaneous use of BOUNCE BACK by Glamorene for an aerosol rug cleaner and BOUNCE by P & G for a dry cleaning detergent or fabric softener would be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive; and (3) whether Glamorene is at least entitled to registration of its mark for the State of California.
On this record, as the issues have been framed and argued by the parties, we find no reversible error committed by the board. The facts demonstrate an effective assignment from Stauffer to P & G, not an assignment in gross. In this regard, the trademark assignment of October 20, 1971 expressly states that for good and valuable consideration received, Stauffer assigns to P & G the trademark "together with the goodwill of the business symbolized by said trademark and in connection with which said trademark is used." At the time of the assignment, Stauffer had a going business and there was substantial goodwill associated with the mark BOUNCE as a dry cleaning detergent. Moreover, P & G's witness Rue testified that P & G had been actively working on its own dry cleaning detergent since 1968. P & G paid good and valuable consideration for the mark which it subsequently used in connection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kardex Systems, Inc. v. SISTEMCO NV, Civ. No. 83-0369 P.
...mark pertained was that of a service ancillary to the principal business of the transferor); see also Glamorene Products Co. v. The Proctor & Gamble Co., 538 F.2d 894 (C.C.P.A.1976); The Money Store v. Harriscorp Finance, Inc., 689 F.2d 666, at 676-78 (7th Here, the continuing effort of Spe......
-
Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Sultana Crackers, Inc.
...Defiance Button Machine Co. v. C & C Metal Products, 759 F.2d at 1059-1062, and cases cited therein; Glamorene Products Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 538 F.2d 894 (C.C.P.A.1976); Hy-Cross Hatchery, Inc. v. Osborne, 303 F.2d 947 (C.C.P.A.1962); and J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competi......
-
Money Store v. Harriscorp Finance, Inc.
...the continuing validity of the mark that tangible assets of the assignor pass to the assignee. E.g., Glamorene Products Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 538 F.2d 894, 895 (C.C.P.A. 1976); Sterling Brewers, Inc. v. Schenley Industries, Inc., 441 F.2d 675, 680 (C.C.P.A. 1971). The plaintiff con......
-
Continental Connector v. Continental Specialties
... ... similarity of the trademarks, competition between products, defendant's bad faith, and plaintiff's potential for ... 1970); Kiki Undies Corp. v. Promenade Hosiery Mills, Inc., 411 F.2d 1097, 1099 (2d ... 1956); Glamorene Products Corp. v. Boyle-Midway, Inc., 538 F.2d 894, 188 ... ...