Case ID: ccpa_47-2/html/0832-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Kirkpatrick, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

275 F. 2d 735; 125 USPQ 188
    In re The Standard Oil Co.
    (No. 6492)
    United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
    March 8, 1960
    
      Leland L. Chapman (Martin T. Fisher of counsel) for appellant.
    
      Clarence W. Moore for the Commissioner of Patents.
    [Oral argument January 12, 1960, by Mr. Chapman and Mr. Moore]
    Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Rich, Martin, and Smith, Associate Judges, and Judge William H. Kirkpatrick
    
    
      
      
         United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O’Connell> pursuant to provisions of section 294 (~d), Title 28, United States Code.
    
   Kirkpatrick, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In this case the appeal is from the refusal of the Commissioner to register a service mark for the words “GUARANTEED RADIATOR PROTECTION.” The services described in the application are “inspecting for leaks the cooling system of internal combustion engines, that is, the radiator, water pump, motor block, and radiator and heater hose, adjusting the freezing point of the fluid contained in said cooling system to a temperature well below that encountered in the winter season, and maintaining said freezing point during the winter season.”

In In re Standard Oil Co., 47 CCPA 831, 275 F. 2d 945, 125 USPQ 227, this court affirmed the refusal of the Commissioner to register the words “GUARANTEED STARTING” as a service mark for servicing motor vehicles to facilitate their starting in cold weather and arranging for payment of expenses of starting them in case they later on failed to start. The principles discussed in that opinion are fully applicable to the present case, and we do not consider that the differences between the words and services involved in the two cases make it necessary or. useful to add to or repeat what was there said. In this case as in that the words sought to be registered are of such a nature that .they convey to the customer information as to the services offered rather than identify and distinguish the services of the applicant from those of others.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.