Legal Opinion · Concurrence

A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. American Steel & Wire Co.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided January 25, 1932No. Patent Appeal 2788Published

1Concurrence

GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and LEN-ROOT, Associate Judge

(specially concurring).

We concur in the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to registration of its mark which it describes as “a silver strand which is incorporated in the rope during the laying-in operation.” We do so, however, upon different grounds than those stated in the opinion of the majority. As we understand the majority opinion, it proceeds upon the theory that confusion would result with opposer’s mark if registration were allowed. In our opinion, the decision should rest upon the ground that the applicant’s mark is…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick & Bascom Rope Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1906
  2. N. K. Fairbank Co. v. R. W. Bell Manuf'g Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896
  3. Samson Cordage Works v. Puritan Cordage MillsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
  4. Diamond Match Co. v. Saginaw Match Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1906
  5. Newcomer v. Scriven Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909

12 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