Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Maltina Corporation and Julio Blanco-Herrera v. Cawy Bottling Company, Inc.

491 F.2d 1391

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1974-04-04
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the judgment for appellees entered by the district court after our decision on the prior appeal. Maltina Corporation v. Cawy Bottling Company, 5 Cir., 1972, 462 F.2d 1021. We are now presented with the tag end questions which were resolved by the district court following remand. We conclude that the trademark was not assigned in gross; that the trademark was not abandoned by non-use or otherwise ; and that the district court did not err in concluding that there was an inadequate basis for cancelling the trademark because of the affidavit of use filed pursuant to 15 U.S.C.A. § 1058(a).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Maltina Corporation and Julio Blanco-Herrera v. Cawy Bottling Company, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
MALTINA CORPORATION v. CAWY BOTTLING COMPANY,491 F.2d 1391(5th Cir. 1974)
MALTINA CORPORATION AND JULIO BLANCO-HERRERA, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. CAWY
BOTTLING COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 73-2145.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 4, 1974.
Peter M. Lopez, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

J. W. Gipple, Washington, D.C., Fowler, White, Humkey, Burnett, Hurley Banick, Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; Charles B. Fulton, Chief Judge.
Before ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge,fn*BELL and GEE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] This is an appeal from the judgment for appellees entered by the district court after our decision on the prior appeal. Maltina Corporation v. Cawy Bottling Company, 5 Cir., 1972,462 F.2d 1021. We are now presented with the tag end questions which were resolved by the district court following remand. We conclude that the trademark was not assigned in gross; that the trademark was not abandoned by non-use or otherwise; and that the district court did not err in concluding that there was an inadequate basis for cancelling the trademark because of the affidavit of use filed pursuant to15 U.S.C.A. § 1058(a).

[2] Affirmed.Page 43
  1. Hon. Bailey Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge of the First Circuit, sitting by designation. ↩