Stanadyne, Inc. v. Lins
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Presiding Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing four consolidated oppositions, opinion published in full at 175 U.S.P.Q. 365 (1972). Familiarity with the opinion below will be assumed. We reverse.
As the board’s opinion shows, appellant-opposer, while it sells its plumbing products to plumbing, heating, and cooling wholesalers, also advertises its products, under its double water-drop mark, in consumer magazines of national circulation. Appellant’s priority is not contested. Although third-party registrations introduced by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
3Cited by5 opinions
- McGraw Company v. Walt Disney Productions and Bally Manufacturing CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Squirtco v. Tomy CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Conde Nast Publications, Inc. v. Miss Quality, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975
- Crown Radio Corp. v. Soundscriber Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- In re Clorox Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978