Legal Opinion
Application of Dobeckmun Company (The Dow Chemical Company, Assignee, Substituted)
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided February 21, 1961No. Patent Appeal 6613PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.
The single issue here is whether Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S. C.A. § 1052(d) ) supports the refusal of the examiner, affirmed by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, to register applicant’s mark “Durafilm” for “laminated and/or extrusion-coated translucent or transparent packaging films,” over prior registration No. 564,274 of the trademark “Durofoil” for “wrapping material, namely, paper laminated to a metallic foil and transparent film material laminated to a metallic foil.”
Appellant urges that the refusal to register its mark is not proper and should be reversed…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- The May Department Stores Company v. Schloss Bros. & Co., Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
- Meyer Chemical Company v. Anahist Co., Inc., (Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical Company, Assignee, Substituted)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
- Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Leo C. HofmanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
3Cited by7 opinions
- Communications Satellite Corp. v. Comcet, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1970
- Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf. v. Steinway & SonsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
- American Manufacturing Company of Texas v. The Heald MacHine CompanyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Librascope, Incorporated (Now by Merger Librascope Division General Precision, Inc.) v. Libraphone, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- American Manufacturing Company of Texas v. The Heald MacHine CompanyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.