Opinion · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Application of Colgate-Palmolive Company
406 F.2d 1385
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1969-03-06
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- “Chew ‘N’ Clean” valid mark for dentifrice
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Application of Colgate-Palmolive Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 5 opinions
APPLICATION OF COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY,406 F.2d 1385(C.C.P.A. 1969)
Application of COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY.
Patent Appeal No. 8095.
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
March 6, 1969.
Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, ALMOND and BALDWIN, Judges.
* * * Moreover, it is an established principle of law that the question of whether or not a given mark is merely descriptive cannot be considered in the abstract but must be considered in connection with the particular goods to which it is applied. * * * When so considered, it is our opinion that "CHEW 'N CLEAN" immediately and directly relates the information that applicant's dentifrice is a product that will clean the teeth when it is chewed, and is therefore merely descriptive of the intended use thereof. If this is not in fact the case, as asserted by applicant, the mark is then deceptively misdescriptive of the goods and equally prohibited registration under the provisions of Section 2(e)(1) of the Act.Page 1386Whether or not registration to applicant would prevent others from using the words "chew" and "clean" in their normal descriptive sense is not believed to be determinative of the question herein.
With due respect to the board's reasoning, we are unable to agree that the instant mark is so descriptive of thegoodsto which it is applied as to preclude registration. Granted that "CHEW 'N CLEAN" might well, and doubtless does, suggest a possible manner of use of the dentifrice, it is not merelydescriptiveof the dentifriceper se.
We note the board's statement that if the mark is not merely descriptive, "the mark is then deceptively misdescriptive of the goods." We do not think that necessarily follows. The board gives no reason for its conclusion, and we are aware of none.
The decision is reversed.
Reversed.