Toro Manufacturing Corp. v. Kearney-National Inc.

Customs and Patent Appeals

Toro Manufacturing Corp. v. Kearney-National Inc.

480 F.2d 905, 178 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 406, 1973 CCPA LEXIS 312

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedJuly 12, 1973

DocketPatent Appeal No. 8967

StatusPublished

This text of 480 F.2d 905 (Toro Manufacturing Corp. v. Kearney-National Inc.) 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

Toro Manufacturing Corp. v. Kearney-National Inc., 480 F.2d 905, 178 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 406, 1973 CCPA LEXIS 312 (ccpa 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

RICH, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing an opposition to the registration of the wordmark POW-R-PRO for power lawn mowers, application serial No. 257,622, filed October 31, 1966, claiming first use in October 1962. The board opinion is reported in full, 168 USPQ 383 (1970), and familiarity therewith will be assumed.

Appellant-opposer predicates its opposition on the prior use and registration of Professional for lawn mowers and Power Handle for a motor and control unit selectively attachable to various machines such as power mowers and snow plows.

The gist of the board’s reasoning is that POW-R-PRO is not sufficiently similar to either Professional or Power Handle as to be likely to cause confusion and there is nothing in the record to justify considering opposer’s two marks together, in order to make comparison with POW-R-PRO. The board also disagreed with appellant’s contention that appellee, by using the abbreviation PRO in its mark, has appropriated appellant’s entire mark Professional, merely adding thereto the equivalent of the descriptive word “power.”

In spite of the fact that appellant has managed to find thirteen' alleged errors in the board’s opinion, all of which it has argued in its brief and which we have considered, we find no error either in the board’s reasoning or in its decision.

The decision of the board is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICH, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing an opposition to the registration of the wordmark POW-R-PRO for power lawn mowers, application serial No. 257,622, filed October 31, 1966, claiming first use in October 1962. The board opinion is reported in full, 168 USPQ 383 (1970), and familiarity therewith will be assumed.

Appellant-opposer predicates its opposition on the prior use and registration of Professional for lawn mowers and Power Handle for a motor and control unit selectively attachable to various machines such as power mowers and snow plows.

The gist of the board’s reasoning is that POW-R-PRO is not sufficiently similar to either Professional or Power Handle as to be likely to cause confusion and there is nothing in the record to justify considering opposer’s two marks together, in order to make comparison with POW-R-PRO. The board also disagreed with appellant’s contention that appellee, by using the abbreviation PRO in its mark, has appropriated appellant’s entire mark Professional, merely adding thereto the equivalent of the descriptive word “power.”

In spite of the fact that appellant has managed to find thirteen' alleged errors in the board’s opinion, all of which it has argued in its brief and which we have considered, we find no error either in the board’s reasoning or in its decision.

The decision of the board is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

480 F.2d 905, 178 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 406, 1973 CCPA LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toro-manufacturing-corp-v-kearney-national-inc-ccpa-1973.