Citations
- 297 F.2d 261
Full opinion text
MARTIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 126 USPQ 65, dismissing appellant’s opposition to appellee’s application for the registration of “RINCO” for goods, apparently designated at the time of filing the opposition as “apparatus and components thereof for supplying and/or measuring electrical characteristics, namely, resistance, capacitance, inductance, reactance, dissipation factor and the reciprocals thereof, voltage, current, phase angle, frequency, power and power factor.” The application was filed on November 14, 1957 and alleges use since February 19, 1957.
The basis for appellant’s opposition is that it has, for over seventeen years before the date of the notice of opposition, used the mark “WINCO” on and in connection with electrical apparatus. It alleges that it has, since a date prior to February 19, 1957, the date of first use asserted by appellee, used that mark on or in connection with motors, generators, dynamotors, inverters, converters, prime-mover-controls, engine driven generators, and control units and measuring instrument cabinets therefor, wind-driven generators, and parts of the foregoing.
Appellant has been granted registrations of “WINCO” for electrical dynamotors, generators, converters, and motors ; wind-driven power apparatus and parts thereof, particularly wind-driven electric current generator apparatus and parts thereof; engine-driven power apparatus and parts thereof, particularly engine-driven electric current generator apparatus and parts thereof; and dynamo-electric machines, particularly motors, generators, dynamotors, inverters, and converters; prime-mover-driven electric generators, particularly engine-generator combinations and starter-control units therefor; prime-mover controls including engine idling-control units; electric power supplies; wind-electric equipment, particularly wind-driven generator apparatus and components thereof; and parts of any of the foregoing.
, . „ , , , It is obvious from the record that appellant, as held by the board, is the prior user'
Subsequent to the taking of testimony by the parties, but before final hearing, appellee moved to amend its application to change the description of goods to “voltage dividing instruments, precision calibrated variable potentiometers and rheostats, and bridge-type impedance measuring instruments.” This motion was denied “without prejudice to any right of the applicant to seek to amend” the application “after determination of this proceeding.”
The board in its decision found as follows:
“The record shows that opposer has, since it was organized in January, 1935, been engaged in the manufacture of wind electric systems, radio, radio and television antenna towers, fractional horsepower motors, portable and standby engine-generators, and • rotary electrical equipment for industrial and military use. These products have been sold under various brand names, of which the principal ones are ‘WIN-CHARGER’ and ‘WINCO’, through°ut the United States and in certain foreign countries through opposer’s sales engineers, manufacturers representatives and wholesale distributors. Opposer has, since about 1941, continuously used the notation ‘WINCO’ as a trademark for its electrical power supply equipment, in-eluding motors, generators, dynamotors, inverters and converters, engine-generator combinations and control units and panels therefore [sic], prime mover controls, wind-driven generators, and parts and components therefor. Opposer’s WINCO generator controls and control units incorporate electronic equipment such as meters and relays, but the record does not show that oppoger manufactures and/or sella these componentg ag such.