In re Allen Electric & Equipment Co.

Customs and Patent Appeals

In re Allen Electric & Equipment Co.

458 F.2d 1404, 59 C.C.P.A. 1044, 173 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 689, 1972 CCPA LEXIS 326

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedMay 18, 1972

DocketNo. 8721

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 458 F.2d 1404 (In re Allen Electric & Equipment Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Allen Electric & Equipment Co., 458 F.2d 1404, 59 C.C.P.A. 1044, 173 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 689, 1972 CCPA LEXIS 326 (ccpa 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Baldwin, Judge.

This is an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision¹ sustaining the refusal of the examiner to register the mark SCANNER for antennas on the ground that the mark is merely descriptive of appellant’s goods.

The goods to which the mark is applied are described in appellant’s application as “antennas.” It is clear from the record that there are antennas which are known as “scanning antennas.” ² The mark SCANNER, if applied to such antennas, would in our view be merely descriptive. While appellant contends that the specimen submitted with its application shows that the mark is not in fact applied to “scanning antennas,” trademark cases must be decided on the basis of the identification of the goods as set forth in the application. In re Dirzius, 50 CCPA 836, 311 F. 2d 825, 136 USPQ 198 (1963); Bristol-Myers Co. v. Pharmaco, Inc., 48 CCPA 1107, 291 F. 2d 756, 130 USPQ 220 (1961); General Shoe Corp. v. Lerner Bros. Mfg. Co., 45 CCPA 872, 254 F. 2d 154, 117 USPQ 281 (1958). Since the goods are described merely as “antennas” and that term is broad enough to encompass [1045]*1045“scanning antennas,” tlie mark SCANNER as applied to the goods is merely descriptive within the meaning of 15 USC 1052(e) (1).

The board’s decision is therefore affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Baldwin, Judge.

This is an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision¹ sustaining the refusal of the examiner to register the mark SCANNER for antennas on the ground that the mark is merely descriptive of appellant’s goods.

The goods to which the mark is applied are described in appellant’s application as “antennas.” It is clear from the record that there are antennas which are known as “scanning antennas.” ² The mark SCANNER, if applied to such antennas, would in our view be merely descriptive. While appellant contends that the specimen submitted with its application shows that the mark is not in fact applied to “scanning antennas,” trademark cases must be decided on the basis of the identification of the goods as set forth in the application. In re Dirzius, 50 CCPA 836, 311 F. 2d 825, 136 USPQ 198 (1963); Bristol-Myers Co. v. Pharmaco, Inc., 48 CCPA 1107, 291 F. 2d 756, 130 USPQ 220 (1961); General Shoe Corp. v. Lerner Bros. Mfg. Co., 45 CCPA 872, 254 F. 2d 154, 117 USPQ 281 (1958). Since the goods are described merely as “antennas” and that term is broad enough to encompass [1045]*1045“scanning antennas,” tlie mark SCANNER as applied to the goods is merely descriptive within the meaning of 15 USC 1052(e) (1).

The board’s decision is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 F.2d 1404, 59 C.C.P.A. 1044, 173 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 689, 1972 CCPA LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-allen-electric-equipment-co-ccpa-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack