Legal Opinion
The Polymer Corporation v. Dayco Corporation, by Change of Name From the Dayton Rubber Company
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided December 12, 1963No. Patent Appeal 7048PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WORLEY, Chief Judge.
Dayco Corporation seeks registration of “NYLAFLEX” as a trademark for a vacuum and hot air hose 1 , first used in 1959. Polymer Corporation opposes 2 on its prior use and 1955 registration 3 of “NYLAFLOW” on “synthetic resin tubing.”
It appears that Polymer manufactures and sells industrial plastics as well as products made of plastic, including nylon pressure tubing and hose which are flexible, resistant to abrasion and impact, and possess other characteristics apparently desirable for industrial use. Polymer tubing and hose are sold through distributors and manufacturers’…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- United States Time Corporation v. Jacob Tennenbaum (Tennenbaum & Co., Telix Watch, Assignee, Substituted)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
3Cited by4 opinions
- Krim-Ko Corporation (Krim-Ko Division, the National Sugar Refining Company) v. The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
- GD Searle & Company v. MDX Purity Pharmacies, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 1967
- Chaussures Bally Societe Anonyme De Fabrication v. Dial Shoe Company, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Chaussures Bally Societe Anonyme De Fabrication v. Dial Shoe Company, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965