Legal Opinion · Dissent
Dynamet Technology, Inc. v. Dynamet Inc.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided March 8, 1979No. Appeal No. 78-551Published
1DissentFord, Judge
It is my view that, as between Dynamet Technology, Inc. (plaintiff) and Dynamet Incorporated (defendant), plaintiff has superior rights, i. e., priority of use, in the term DYNAMET.
The TTAB found, 197 USPQ at 709, and defendant has not asserted otherwise, that on March 12, 1968, plaintiff delivered an order of processed powdered titanium to the Wyman-Gordon Company packed in a drum on which the name DYNAMET appeared along with the company address. Regardless of whether this is construed as a trademark or trade name usage, plaintiff can rely at least on this date for the purpose of priority.1…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hanover Star Milling Co. v. MetcalfSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- American Steel Foundries v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Ernie M. Duff v. The Kansas City Star Company, a Corporation, and Emil A. SeesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1962
- Lawyers Title Ins. Co. v. Lawyers Title Ins. CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.