stating that a party "may rely on advertising and promotional use of a term or slogan ... to establish superior rights over a subsequent trademark user’ of the term, slogan, or word.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that a party "may rely on advertising and promotional use of a term or slogan ... to establish superior rights over a subsequent trademark user’ of the term, slogan, or word.”
- permitting reliance on copyrighted appearance of stuffed' rag doll in opposition and cancellation proceedings
- “Although 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) provides that the federal district courts’ original jurisdiction over copyright actions ‘shall be exclusive of the courts of the states,’ the state courts clearly may pass on the validity of a copyright ... in the course of deciding a case over which they do have jurisdiction”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Baldwin, Judge,
concurring.
I am in full agreement with the foregoing opinion. With regard to the question involving our jurisdiction over this appeal, I further-note that Bule 2.117 (a) of the Trademark Buies of Practice adopts the Federal Buies of Civil Procedure “wherever considered applicable- ■and appropriate” in in-ter-partes cases. The case before us seems to-present a classic situation for invoking FBCP Buies 54(b), since it involves a final, substantive decision on fewer than all of appellant’s; claims, and there is no apparent reason for delay. I think that a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board as to whether a particular issue is ripe for appeal would be highly desirable. In view of the great progress that Bule has engendered in dealing with the *1311 problems of “finality,” 1 no reason is apparent why it could not be adopted in the type of case before us.
See Garrett v. United States, 407 F.2d 146, 150-51 (8th Cir. 1969); Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 101, at p. 454 (2d ed. 1970).