Legal Opinion
Hydro-Dynamics, Inc. v. George Putnam & Company, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided February 11, 1987No. 19-2053PublishedCited by 70 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Hydro-Dynamics, Inc. appeals the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, sustaining an opposition filed by George Putnam & Company, Inc., thereby denying to Hydro-Dynamics federal registration of the mark WATERCOLORS for waterbed linens. George Putnam & Co. v. Hydro-Dynamics, Inc., 228 USPQ 951 (TTAB 1986). We affirm the Board’s decision.
Background
Hydro-Dynamics is a manufacturer of waterbed linens that sells to both wholesale and retail markets. At a date before September 1980 a consultant, hired by…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. SteffensSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Blue Bell, Inc. v. Farah Manufacturing Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- New England Duplicating Co., Inc. v. MendesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1951
- Blue Bell, Inc. v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by70 opinions
- Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Zazu Designs, a Partnership v. L'oreal, S.A.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Department of Parks and Re-Creation for the State of California v. Bazaar Del Mundo Inc., a California CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.