Opinion

Claremont Polychemical Corp. v. Atlantic Powdered Metals, Inc.

  • 470 F.2d 636
Court
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Filed
Dec 29, 1972
Status
Published
Author
Baldwin
On the bench
Baldwin, Rich
Cited by
6 cases

DURAGOLD and EVERGOLD "highly suggestive of the color and wearing ability of the products upon which they are employed"

How later courts described this case

  • DURAGOLD and EVERGOLD "highly suggestive of the color and wearing ability of the products upon which they are employed"
  • Evergold for metal powder and Duragold for bronze pigment

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

BALDWIN, Judge

(dissenting).

I disagree with the conclusion of the majority. Considering the marks in their entireties, I conclude that, as applied to the goods, the respective marks would be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. The marks are practically identical in meaning and they are very similar in appearance. I con *638 sider it highly likely that one who sees EVERGOLD being used in connection with bronze powder, for example, would conclude that the powder was made by the same concern who makes DURA-GOLD bronze gold pigment for decorative uses.

I would reverse.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.