![]() This witness gave no actual figures as to shipments or sales of watches under the mark "OCEANSTAR" excepting that since 1959 the shipments of such watches have "run into thousands." "OCEANSTAR" watches have been advertised during the years 19 and this advertising has been directed to the trade and the public through the means of national magazine advertising, newspaper advertising, counter cards, folders and broad sides. The witness testified further that his company received shipments of watches marked "OCEANSTAR" beginning in 1944, with shipments being of "vast quantities" starting in 1959. That testimony is not of record, but the board summarized it in its decision as follows (139 USPQ at 19): * * * The witness, who has been the president of his company since its organization in December 1941, testified that all the watches it sells bear the mark "MIDO" and in most cases an additional mark. Mido apparently presented the testimony of the president of Mido Watch Company of America, a wholly owned subsidiary of appellee and distributor for "MIDO" watches in the United States. Thus the goods are identical for present purposes. In this consolidated proceeding appellant relies solely on its registrations.īoth appellee's registered mark and that sought to be registered are for, inter alia, "parts of watches" which appellee admits in the answer to petition for cancellation include watch cases and watch casings, the primary line of goods of appellant. #STAR WATCH CASE COMPANY A11 REGISTRATION#The Patent Office denied the motion to strike, noting that the OCEANSTAR registration "is relevant to the question of possible damage to the opposer ," and gave appellant a limited time within which to file a petition for cancellation "failing which, the opposition will be dismissed." The petition was timely filed and Mido pleaded the affirmative defenses of laches and estoppel in answer to the cancellation petition. In the alternative Star requested suspension of the opposition pending the filing of a petition by it to cancel the registration of OCEANSTAR and requested a consolidation with the opposition to OCEAN * STAR. Star moved to strike appellee's notice of reliance on OCEANSTAR in part because that mark differed from the one sought to be registered. CO.," within a border design, for watch cases, and of "STAR WATCH CASE COMPANY" in combination with a five-pointed star, for "solid-gold and gold-filled watch cases." 5 Appellant also attempts to rely on several registrations to a star design, the outline of a five-pointed star, which were registered 6 subsequent to appellee's first mark OCEANSTAR, but which allege dates of first use prior to 1944, the date of appellee's Swiss registration. ![]() (Star), appellant, which has registrations of "STAR W. Registration is opposed by the Star Watch Case Co. Mido also listed ownership of the registered mark OCEANSTAR 4 in its application, and filed notice of reliance thereon for the purpose of overcoming appellant's pleading of likelihood of confusion and abandonment of the mark sought to be registered. Hereinafter we shall refer to the mark sought to be registered as OCEAN * STAR. Schaeren & Co., by change of name from Societe Anonyme Mido (Mido), appellee, has filed an application 3 to register on the Principal Register the following mark for watches and parts of watches: #STAR WATCH CASE COMPANY A11 TRIAL#This appeal is from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 139 USPQ 18, dismissing appellant's petition to cancel 1 appellee's registration for trademark and dismissing appellant's opposition 2 to the application to register another mark by appellee.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |