Court Opinion

ID: 9453868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:26:40.284279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:50.543331
License: Public Domain

WORLEY, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I am aware of no authority supporting the majority action in vacating the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board merely because the parties apparently desire such action.
It should be remembered that the board, '-after full' consideration on the merits, held adversely to appellant. After appeal to this court appellant filed a motion predicated on a stipulation and order. The stipulation reads:
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the attorneys for the respective parties hereto, the Commissioner of Patents consenting, that the above-entitled proceeding be, and the same hereby is, terminated upon the following terms and conditions:
1— The appellee hereby withdraws its application for registration of the trademark “SWINGLINE”, Serial No. 137,916, filed February 14, 1962 with prejudice and consents that Opposition No. 42,297 be in all respects sustained.
2— The appellee further agrees that it will not, except as specifically set forth in this stipulation, utilize the trademark “SWINGLINE” upon any goods whatsoever.
3— The appellant agrees, subject to compliance by the appellee with the terms and conditions of this stipulation, to grant to appellee a full and complete release of any claims that it has or may have against the ap-pellee from the beginning of the world to the date of this stipulation with respect to the prior utilization of the trademark “SWINGLINE” by appel-lee.
4— The appellant specifically grants the appellee a term of twelve (12) months from the date of this stipulation to utilize its present material in commerce bearing the trademark “SWINGLINE”. Appellee agrees that it will not, subsequent to the date *287of this stipulation, print or design, or cause to be printed or designed, any material bearing the trademark “SWINGLINE”.
5 — The terms and conditions of this stipulation may be specifically enforced by the appellant against the appel-lee in any court having jurisdiction of the parties. (Emphasis supplied)
The Order which this court was asked to enforce reads:
ORDERED, ■’that" Opposition No. 42297 be in all respects sustained and that the application for registration of the trademark “SWINGLINE”, Serial No. 137,916 filed February 14, 1962, is withdrawn with prejudice, and it is further
ORDERED, that I. B. KLEINERT RUBBER COMPANY, the appellee herein, will not utilize the trademark “SWINGLINE” upon any goods whatsoever except to the extent set forth in the annexed stipulation, and it is further
ORDERED, that subject to the compliance by I. B. KLEINERT RUBBER COMPANY, with the terms and conditions of this stipulation, SWING-LINE INC. hereby grants unto said I. B. KLEINERT RUBBER COMPANY a full and complete release of any and all claims that it has or may have against said company from the beginning of the world to the date of the annexed stipulation with respect to the prior utilization of the trademark “SWINGLINE” by said corporation, and it is further
ORDERED, that the Commissioner of Patents shall enter an appropriate order on its records in accordance with the order of this Court.
In answer thereto the Commissioner of Patents challenged the propriety and legality of such action as follows:
The Commissioner of Patents, through counsel, submits the following memorandum in connection with the Motion, Stipulation and Order, submitted by the parties in Opposition No. 42,297.
' The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board having concluded that “applicant’s use of ‘SWINGLINE’ is not likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception”, dismissed the Opposition. The parties propose to overrule the Board by their stipulation and the proposed order they are requesting the Court to sign.
The Commissioner of Patents desires to point out that there is no basis in the law for the order requested by the parties. The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cannot be reversed by the agreement of the parties, but only by a court of competent jurisdiction after hearing and decision on the points raised. The ap-pellee may withdraw its application if it so desires, but appellee cannot legally change the Board’s decision by consenting that the Opposition be in all respects sustained. (Emphasis supplied)
After full consideration this court unanimously and properly denied appellant’s motion, the Clerk advising the parties by letter to that effect.1 Thus, since there is nothing else before the court, the present posture of the appeal *288is precisely as before, and, absent a motion by appellant to dismiss, should be decided on its merits as Congress has said we should do.2
Had appellant moved to dismiss its appeal here the adverse decision of the board would have remained. However, during argument appellant’s counsel frankly stated the purpose of the stipulation and order was to remove that decision as a precedent against his client in any future litigation involving the mark “SWINGLINE.” Thus, unhappily, the majority follows an unauthorized, unwise and unnecessary3 procedure in ratifying an agreement between private parties to set aside a legal ruling of a tribunal created by Congress and charged with the responsibility it has properly discharged here.

. ^ * * * *
The court has today denied the motion of appellant to dispose of this, appeal based on a stipulation and order filed by counsel for the appellant and ap-pellee and attached to said motion. Certain of the contents of the proposed “Stipulation and Order” are deemed to be outside the jurisdiction of the court.
Unless the parties file appropriate papers requesting dismissal, this appeal will proceed in due course. * * * No papers requesting dismissal have been filed, nor did counsel make any such motion at oral argument. It should also be remembered that, at oral argument, counsel for appellant did not regard the appeal as “moot.” Indeed, insofar as I am aware, appellee has not formally abandoned its application to register the mark “SWINGLINE.”

. Section 21(a) (4) of the Lanham Act reads:
(4) The court shall hear and determine such appeal on the evidence produced before the Patent Office, and the decision shall be confined to the points set forth in the reasons of appeal. * * *

. That there is no necessity for the majority action here is clearly evident from the action taken by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Viber Co. v. Ren-ner Co., 156 USPQ 160 (1967).