Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided October 8, 1985No. Appeal 84-1416Published

1DissentBissell, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent.

I

I adhere to the view that “the law is well-settled today that the overall color of a product ... cannot be a trade identity designation, nor is it entitled to registration.” 3 R. Callman, The Law of Unfair Competition Trademarks and Monopolies § 18.13 (4th ed. 1983). That was the law long before the 1946 Lanham Act, it continued to be the law after the Act, and it ought to be the law in this case.1

A

More than two decades before the Lanham Act the Supreme Court applied that rule of law in denying trademark protection to the color of a beverage, announcing that “the…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
  2. Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd. And Michael ZaffaranoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
  4. James Burrough Limited and Kobrand Corporation v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., and Montgomery Ward & Co., IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
  5. Quabaug Rubber Company v. Fabiano Shoe Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1977

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API