§

Porcelain Metals Corp.

No. 75091534 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 1999)
Porcelain Metals Corp.

4 Cited authorities

  1. In re ATV Network Ltd.

    552 F.2d 925 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 76-722. March 31, 1977. Joseph F. Brisebois, Arlington, Va. (Brisebois Kruger Arlington, Va.), attorneys of record, for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents, Gerald H. Bjorge, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Judges, and KASHIWA, Judge, United States Court of Claims. KASHIWA, Judge.[fn1] [fn1] Judge of the United States Court of Claims

  2. Application of Burndy Corporation

    300 F.2d 938 (C.C.P.A. 1962)   Cited 10 times

    Patent Appeal No. 6736. April 11, 1962. Ernest Fanwick, Norwalk, Conn. (Robert I. Dennison, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge JOSEPH R. JACKSON, Retired. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the affirmance by the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the ex parte rejection of appellant's application to register a trademark on the Principal

  3. Diamond Alkali Company v. Dundee Cement Co.

    343 F.2d 781 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 2 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7373. April 15, 1965. Boynton P. Livingston, Washington, D.C., (James L. Kurtz, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. L. Gaylord Hulbert, Detroit, Mich., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. MARTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board wherein the board dismissed the opposition of the appellant, Diamond Alkali Company, which opposition was instituted against an application of

  4. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,599 times   274 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"