Legal Opinion
Application of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided August 27, 1964No. Patent Appeal 7174PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (136 U.S.P.Q. 676, abstract) refusing to register, on the Supplemental Register, appellant’s mark on the sole ground that it constitutes the overall configuration of the goods and as such “does not constitute proper subject matter for registra tion” on the Supplemental Register. No reference is relied on.
The board so held after expressly admitting that section 23 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1091) “specifically provides for the registration of a mark which consists of a ‘configuration of goods’.” To this we…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Application of Deister Concentrator Company, IncCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
- Application of Mogen David Wine CorporationCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
- In re BournsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
3Cited by22 opinions
- In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- Truck Equipment Service Company, Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Fruehauf Corporation, Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1976
- In Re Owens-Corning Fiberglas CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Petersen Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Central Purchasing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- In Re Bose CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.