Decisions · 86651083
In re Olin Corporation
Serial No. 86651083 · Decided 2017-09-22 · Other
What happened
The Board upheld the refusal to register OLIN for industrial chemicals, finding that OLIN is primarily merely a surname and that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that the mark had acquired distinctiveness with the public through its use on other goods.
The marks
Applicant
OLIN
"Chlorine; hydrochloric acid; potassium hydroxide; sodium hydroxide; sodium hypochlorite; hydrogen; sodium chloride; sulfuric acid; ethylene dichloride; vinyl chloride monomer; acetone; cumene; phenol; allyl chloride; epichlorohydrin; bisphenol A; unprocessed synthetic novolac resins; unprocessed epoxy resins, including unprocessed liquid epoxy resins and unprocessed advanced epoxy resins; unprocessed epoxy novolac resins; amine-based hardeners, namely, chemical additives for resins; polyphenolic-based hardeners, namely, chemical additives for resins; chlorinated hydrocarbons; chemical products, namely chemicals for industrial purposes; unprocessed synthetic resins; chlorinated organic chemicals for use in industry; chlorinated inorganic chemicals for use in industry, and chemical preparations, namely, chlorinated solvents for industrial and commercial use," in International Class 1; and "Semi-processed synthetic novolac resins; semi-processed epoxy resins including semi-processed liquid epoxy resins and semi-processed advanced epoxy resins; semi-processed epoxy novolac resins; semi-processed synthetic resins," in International Class 17
Why this decision is significant
Precedential decision establishing that, for intent-to-use applications, the goods on which a mark previously acquired distinctiveness must be ‘sufficiently similar or related’ to the applied-for goods under all three Rule 2.41(a) proof methods, and clarifying the substantially-exclusive-use requirement in that context; also generated a separate opinion questioning the majority’s new rule.
Research significance is Trademark Valet's editorial rating of how useful a decision is to practitioners. It is not a statement of precedential weight — that is the separate Precedential field, which comes from the Board.
Related decisions
Both SMARTLOCK trademark registrations were cancelled
In re Locus Link USA
The Board agreed with the USPTO that the registrations for “evaporative air coolers” were never actually used in commerce because the owner only used SMARTLOCK on connectors/fittings that…
Expungement No. 2022-100137E (Reg. No. 5376467) · 2024-07-01 · SMARTLOCK
Both SMARTLOCK trademark registrations were cancelled
In re Locus Link USA
The Board agreed with the USPTO that the registrations for “evaporative air coolers” were never actually used in commerce because the owner only used SMARTLOCK on connectors/fittings that…
Expungement No. 2022-100138E (Reg. No. 5376466) · 2024-07-01 · SMARTLOCK
In re MK Diamond Products, Inc.
The Board upheld refusal to register the curved-cut-out shape on the edge of MK Diamond’s circular saw blades as a trademark, finding the curve serves a practical, functional purpose…
86813875 · 2020-07-27 · Product configuration mark consisting of a circular saw blade comprising the curved portion of a repeating slot design around the circumference of the goods (portions shown in broken lines are not part of the mark)
In re Change Wind Corp.
The Board refused Change Wind Corp.'s application to register the three-dimensional shape of its vertical-axis wind turbine — four twisting wings straddling a cone-topped cylindrical tower…
86046590 · 2017-07-20 · Three-dimensional product configuration of a wind-powered turbine: four vertically extending turbine wings, obliquely curved in a twisting (helical) manner, straddling a vertically extending cylindrical base that tapers at its upper end into a truncated cone (design-only configuration mark; Section 2(f) claimed)
The original record
Read the opinion and every filing on the Board's own docket. The summary above is our paraphrase, not a quotation from the opinion. The opinion is the authority.
Who checked this
Not yet reviewed by an attorney. This summary is generated from coded data, and it says so until a lawyer has read it.
Provenance — Generated from database rows without re-reading the opinion.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.