Citations
- 102 F.2d 899
Full opinion text
HATFIELD, Associate Judge.
This is an appeal in a trade-mark opposition proceeding from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents reversing the de-cisión 0f the Examiner of Interferences dismissing appellee’s notice of opposition and holding that appellant was entitled to the registration of the trade-mark “Cen-tralloy” for use on alloy steel.
T •*. t ^ <• ■ ^ ,• , In its application for registration, filed June 25, 1935, appellant alleged that it had uscd trade'mark on alloy steel since June ^ year-
It appears from the record that, although appellant’s alloy steel is sold according to specification to “Manufacturers, fabricators, various railroads, car builders, locomotive manufacturers,” and “steel warehouses,” it is, according to the witness Robert H. McCracken, Philadelphia sales manager for the appellant company, “in very much the experimental stage. We speak of it as Centralloy and we want it t0 be known as Centralloy. Eventually we would expect our customers to put ‘Central-l°y’ on their orders without any particular specification, with the understanding, of course, that we would know their requirements.” It further appears from the record that the word “Central” has been a part of appellant’s corporate name for many years; that appellant has used several trade-marks for its steel products, each °f which has included the word “Central,” such as> “Central Knobby Floor Plates,” “Central Knobbyette,” “Central All Way Gri „ «Central Highway Guards,”' and «Central Lawn Ed ; ». tilat appelIanfs ducts are a] sold as «Ccntral” products; and that, according to appellant's witness Irvi M. Smith as the Uant desired tQ « tuate the Word