Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Bendix Aviation Corp.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 27, 1946No. 5193Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Bland, Judge:

I regret that I am unable to agree with the majority that the decision of the Commissioner should be reversed. I think the result he arrived at is supported by a great weight of authority.

My disagreement with the holding of the majority in reversing the decision of the Commissioner is based upon two reasons: First, the trade-marks are identical; second, it seems to me that, in view of the facts of record, confusion is likely to result.

The stipulated facts show that the trade-marks are identical; that the Bendix Aviation Corporation (hereinafter referred to as…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. American Steel Foundries v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. California Packing Corp. v. Price-Booker Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  3. Philadelphia Inquirer Co. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
  4. Pratt & Lambert, Inc. v. Chapman & Rodgers, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1943
  5. Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. v. Industrial Undergarment Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946

1 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