Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In re Clorox Co.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 30, 1978No. Appeal No. 77-628Published

1Concurrence

MARKEY, Chief Judge,

specially concurring.

The foregoing opinion speaks for a unanimous court. These comments reflect a view respecting the underlying rationale for the holding that the citation of marks “registered” on either register is permissible in ex parte examination under § 2(d).

Section 2(d) refers to marks “registered” or “previously used” and to likelihood of confusion. Because the confusion sought to be prevented by the Act is in the marketplace, where marks are used, the underlying basis for reference to marks “registered” is necessarily the presumption that registered marks cited…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
  2. AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
  3. J. C. Hall Company v. Hallmark Cards, IncorporatedCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
  4. Massey Junior College, Inc. v. Fashion Institute of TechnologyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
  5. Sidney J. Friedman, D.B.A. Wyandotte Mattress Company v. Sealy, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1960

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API