# Wallpaper Manufacturers, Ltd. v. Crown Wallcovering Corp.

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · June 17, 1982 · 680 F.2d 755

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8915305

## Case

- **Full name:** The WALLPAPER MANUFACTURERS, LIMITED v. CROWN WALLCOVERING CORPORATION
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** June 17, 1982
- **Citations:** 680 F.2d 755; 214 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 327; 1982 CCPA LEXIS 128
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Markey
- **Judges:** Baldwin, Markey, Miller, Nies, Rich
- **Cited by:** 42 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8915305

## Opinion text

MARKEY, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
The issue of whether CROWN had lost trademark significance was, in my view, tried by the parties. If it weren’t, this court has no business dealing with it.
The board neither mentioned nor applied an “exclusivity” standard. Erecting and destroying that strawman serves no useful purpose. The sole issue is whether WPML is entitled to retain its registration. The board noted the extent of CWC’s use and held WPML’s registration inconsistent therewith. In this case, one who orders CROWN wallpaper cannot possibly be assured of getting or avoiding wallpaper of one expected quality. Hence CROWN has lost all trademark significance. That circumstance is due to WPML’s acts of omission. 15 U.S.C. § 1145 (b). Its registration has in this case become an empty shell. Allowing registrants to retain registrations, while taking no action against years of adverse use of an identical mark on identical goods, demeans and degrades the register. I would affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8915305. Public record. Not legal advice.