United States Treasury v. Synthetic Plastics Co., Patent Appeal No. 7275.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 7275. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES TREASURY, Appellant, v. SYNTHETIC PLASTICS CO., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
H. L. Godfrey, Washington, D. C., Louise O'Neil, St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges.
Appellant filed a notice of opposition to registration of the trademark "Guest Star" for "Mechanically Grooved Phonograph Records," based on appellee's application, serial No. 134,165, filed December 15, 1961. Appellee answered the notice of opposition. In this answer, appellee averred:
"By way of further answer to the notice of opposition, applicant further says that the United States Government is without authority to directly or indirectly engage in the sale or manufacture of phonograph records and to appropriate unto itself the trademark "GUEST STAR" or to engage in rendering services or to produce television programs and appropriate service marks or trademarks incidental thereto, in competition with citizens engaged in free private enterprise and to the detriment of such citizens."
Appellant moved to strike all of this paragraph along with a portion of paragraph 1 and all of paragraph 9. This appeal raises the single question of the propriety of the denial of the motion by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Jurisdiction of this court to entertain appeals from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is controlled by Section 21 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. § 1071), which contemplates only a review of "the decision" of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The term "decision" when used in such context means a dispositive decision in which a right has been adjudicated. See Seamless Rubber Co. v. Ethicon, Inc., 268 F.2d 231, 46 CCPA 950.
The refusal of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to strike the paragraphs referred to in appellant's motion to strike is not such a "decision." It does not adjudicate a right nor is it dispositive of any issue in the proceeding. It does not, despite appellant's arguments, decide any issue raised by the portions of the answer toward which the motion to strike is directed. As such, there is no basis for the present appeal and it is hereby dismissed.
Dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A&H SPORTSWEAR CO. v. Victoria's Secret Stores
...we are also aware of the preliminary nature of that determination, and appraise it in that context. See U.S. Treasury v. Synthetic Plastics Co., 341 F.2d 157 (CCPA 1965) (the term "decision" when used in context of review by Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, means "a dispositive decision......
-
Tequila Centinela, S.A. De C.V. v. Bacardi & Co.
...Wagner Shokai, Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Wako, 699 F.2d 1390, 1391 (Fed.Cir.1983) (citing United States Treasury v. Synthetic Plastics Co., 52 C.C.P.A. 967, 341 F.2d 157, 157 (CCPA 1965)). A dispositive, final decision, is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for th......
-
Knickerbocker Toy Co., Inc. v. Faultless Starch Co.
...a party's pleadings. Up to that time the parties had assumed we had jurisdiction. We referred them to United States Treasury v. Synthetic Plastics Co., 341 F.2d 157, 52 CCPA 967 (1965); Seamless Rubber Co. v. Ethicon, Inc., 268 F.2d 231, 46 CCPA 950 (1959); and Master, Warden, etc. v. Sheff......
-
Chesebrough-Pond's Inc. v. Faberge, Inc., Appeal No. 79-558.
...422 F.2d 918, 165 USPQ 171, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 911, 91 S.Ct. 140, 27 L.Ed.2d 151 (1970); United States Treasury v. Synthetic Plastics Co., 52 CCPA 967, 341 F.2d 157, 144 USPQ 429 (1965); In re Maloy, 51 CCPA 1081, 328 F.2d 933, 140 USPQ 599 (1964), all of which were trademark 3 We do no......