NORTON COMPANY v. BEAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Patent Appeal No. 8453.
Decision Date | 11 March 1971 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 8453. |
Citation | 438 F.2d 620 |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Parties | NORTON COMPANY, Appellant, v. BEAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee. |
Edward M. Prince, Washington, D. C. (Cushman, Darby & Cushman), Washington, D. C., attorney of record, for appellant; C. Willard Hayes, Washington, D. C., James Spool, Niskayuna, N. Y., of counsel.
James M. Parker, Thomas R. Juettner, Chicago, Ill. (Gary, Parker, Juettner, Pigott & Cullinan), Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, LANE, Judges, and FORD, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation.
This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 157 USPQ 634 (1968), sustaining appellee's oppositions to appellant's registration of the mark BEAR1 and of a design mark consisting of a bear's head2 as reproduced in the board opinion, 157 USPQ at 635, both for "mineral oil, namely, a general-purpose lubricating and sharpening oil." We affirm.
Appellee based its oppositions on likelihood of confusion between the marks sought to be registered and its prior use of the mark BEAR-LUBE and of a design mark consisting of a laughing, standing bear, also reproduced in the board's opinion at page 635, for steering-column lubricants in both grease and liquid forms. These lubricants contain approximately 80-85% mineral oil.
Appellant advances several contentions here, all of which were raised before the board and, in our opinion, correctly decided by the board. We find it necessary to discuss only one of these contentions, i. e., that the goods involved are of such different character and move in such different channels of trade that confusion is unlikely.
The description of goods in appellant's applications is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc.
...(CCPA 1977); Sheraton Corp. of America v. Sheffield Watch, Inc., 480 F.2d 1400, 178 USPQ 468 (CCPA 1973); Norton Co. v. Bear Mfg. Co., 58 CCPA 981, 438 F.2d 620, 169 USPQ 44 (1971). Here, appellant seeks to register the word MONOPOLY as its mark without any restrictions reflecting the facts......
-
Sheraton Corp. of America v. Sheffield Watch, Inc.
...merchandising in any way, and, as appellant points out, channels of trade are subject to changes in course. See Norton Co. v. Bear Mfg. Co., 438 F.2d 620, 58 CCPA 981 (1971); Crown Industrial Products Co. v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 440 F.2d 446, 58 CCPA 1095 (1971). In fact, the type......
-
Application of Riddle
... ... Bergh and Charles O. Forge ... Patent Appeal No. 8457 ... United States Court of ... ...