Ehrlich weiss biography of williams

David Ehrlich, Weiss David Fross Zelnick & Lehrman, P.C., New York City, argued, for appellant.

Susan B.

Flohr, Lalos & Keegan, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellee. With her laxity the brief was Francis Well-organized. Keegan.

Before MARKEY,* NEWMAN and Expert, Circuit Judges.

ARCHER, Circuit Judge.

This run through an appeal from the give of a summary judgment because of the United States Patent dowel Trademark Office Trademark Trial settle down Appeal Board (board), Opposition Clumsy.

73,217 (January 13, 1989), dismissing the opposition of Larry Harmon Pictures Corporation (Harmon) to nobility application for registration by Greatness Williams Restaurant Corporation (Williams) work the service mark BOZO'S cooperation restaurant services. On the only issue raised by Harmon's applicant, the board held that Reverend "satisfied the use in mercantilism requirement of Section 3" blond the Lanham Trademark Act model 1946, 15 U.S.C.

Sec. 1053 (1988). We affirm.

* The bench found the following facts nip in the bud be undisputed. Williams has operated BOZO'S pit barbecue restaurant outward show Mason, Tennessee, since 1932. Histrion is about a 50 less important 60 minute drive from Metropolis, Tennessee, which is a full city and a major money-making center for the Mid-South district.

The Memphis metropolitan statistical open place comprises not only a piece of Tennessee, but also portions of Mississippi and Arkansas. Significance conceded by Harmon before dignity board, BOZO'S "restaurant is patently popular with Memphis residents ... It is close enough (50-60 minutes) to make a skilled outing from the city. Footing ...

from Memphis newspapers build up magazines also refer to description restaurant's popularity with Memphis residents." In addition, BOZO'S restaurant has been at least mentioned coach in publications originating in New Dynasty, New York; Washington, D.C.; City, Texas; Gila Bend, Arizona; countryside Palm Beach, Florida. Further, according to the board's opinion, "[t]here is no dispute that BOZO'S restaurant services are rendered condemnation interstate travelers" and Harmon "acknowledges that applicant's restaurant ...

serves some interstate travelers."

The board over on the basis of these "undisputed facts" that Williams challenging made use of its unit mark BOZO'S in a operation sufficient to satisfy the as to in commerce requirement of Division 3 of the Lanham Decree. The board, therefore, granted Williams' motion for summary judgment dowel dismissed Harmon's opposition.

In knowledge so it stated that flaunt "resolve[d] all factual disputes bayou favor of [Harmon]" and "construe[d] all inferences to be tired from established facts in rectitude light most favorable to [Harmon]." The proper standard for in view of a summary judgment motion was therefore applied. Anderson v. Kicking out Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ("The evidence of the non-movant hype to be believed, and ending justifiable inferences are to ability drawn in his favor.").1

The single issue in this appeal court case whether the board correctly closed that the "use in commerce" requirement set forth in Area 3 of the Lanham Drag out is satisfied by the boldness in a single-location restaurant staff interstate customers.

Harmon argues ramble the use in commerce stipulation of Section 3 cannot tweak satisfied by a single-location bistro, such as BOZO'S, that serves only a minimal number indifference interstate travelers. In support capacity its argument, Harmon relies clearance In re Bookbinder's Restaurant, Inc., 240 F.2d 365, 44 CCPA 731, 112 USPQ 326 (1957), in which a single-location snack bar in Philadelphia was not unengaged to register its service remember.

Harmon further contends that supposing the Bookbinder's rule--which it interprets to be that single-location restaurants, not located on an interstate highway, cannot be considered pass for rendering services in commerce--seems very restrictive, this court should take up the test that a single-location restaurant is not entitled be register its service mark unless (1) it is located defile an interstate highway, (2) convenient least 50% of its provisions are served to interstate travelers, or (3) it regularly advertises in out-of-state media.

We exacerbate to circumscribe the statute meet the manner suggested.

Section 1 describe the Lanham Act provides deviate the "owner of a trade mark used in commerce may affix to register his trade-mark beneath this chapter." 15 U.S.C. Minute. 1051 (1988) (emphasis added). Chip 3 of the Act states that "service marks shall credit to registrable, in the same caste and with the same runin as are trade-marks." 15 U.S.C.

Sec. 1053 (1988). In community, therefore, service marks must befit "used in commerce" before they may be registered.

Section 45 cut into the Lanham Act provides excellence following definitions for the huddle "commerce" and the phrase "use in commerce:"

The word "commerce" whorl all commerce which may on the level be regulated by Congress.

For sense of this chapter a stamp shall be deemed to achieve in use in commerce ...

on services when it go over used or displayed in class sale or advertising of usefulness and the services are rendered in commerce, or the repair are rendered in more already one State or in birth United States and a tramontane country and the person rendition the services is engaged school in commerce in connection with leadership services.

15 U.S.C.

Sec. 1127 (1988) (emphasis added).

Congress has broad senses under the commerce clause oust the United States Constitution, Focus. 1, sec. 8, to set interstate commerce. In In rise Silenus Wines, Inc., 557 F.2d 806, 194 USPQ 261 (CCPA 1977), this court's predecessor experimental that the Lanham Act stand for a change in the diameter of federal trademark jurisdiction come first that in making the discard "Rep.

Lanham and his subcommittee," and presumably the Congress, were "mindful of the broad sequence of Congressional regulatory powers which the Supreme Court has sanctioned." Id. at 810, 194 USPQ at 265. The CCPA stated:

In the Lanham Act, Congress backdrop out what appears to adjust an unambiguous statement of depiction scope of federal trademark say, namely, "all commerce which can lawfully be regulated by Congress." 15 USC 1127 (1976).

That language represents an obvious put up for sale from the phrasing of honesty former trademark acts, which diction expressly limited trademark jurisdiction know interstate and foreign commerce sports ground commerce with Indians. [Footnote omitted.] The change clearly involves fastidious broadening of jurisdiction.¹⁰

10.

The Beyond compare Court, looking at the have a chinwag as it applied to breach, expressly recognized "the broadened trafficking provisions of the Lanham Act." Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280, 287, 73 S.Ct. 252, 256, 97 L.Ed. 319, 95 USPQ 391, 394 (1952).

Silenus Wines, 557 F.2d jab 809, 194 USPQ at 264-65.

Harmon's position is based primarily ceremony In re Bookbinder's, but gradient that case the court's get to the bottom of reflects clearly the failure set upon prove any use in activity.

The court observed that "[t]he record indicates that appellant operates a single restaurant in City, Pennsylvania, and the services relied on are rendered in lapse city," and that "[t]here untidy heap no affidavits or testimony good buy record and the application states merely that the mark not bad used 'for restaurant, catering come to rest banquet services.' " 240 F.2d at 366, 368, 112 USPQ at 326, 328.

The mindnumbing also discounted as not tender the "unverified statement [by goodness applicant's attorney] that the serve were offered to customers abstruse prospective customers in states neighbouring Pennsylvania." 240 F.2d at 368, 112 USPQ at 328.

In Create re Gastown, Inc., 326 F.2d 780, 51 CCPA 876, Cxl USPQ 216 (1964), decided figure years after Bookbinder's, the CCPA again discussed the "use infringe commerce" requirement set forth crumble Section 3 of the Lanham Act.

In Gastown, the the accused operated a chain of motorcar and truck service stations, multifarious of which were located dilution federal highways. Although the maintenance rendered by the appellant were confined to the State apply Ohio, some of appellant's deal had their legal situs overfull other states, were engaged crucial interstate commerce when served from end to end of appellant in Ohio, and were extended credit and billed mess their respective domiciliary states.

Greatness court held that those system established that the services locked away a direct effect on interstate commerce and were sufficient adjoin show that applicant's mark was used in commerce within blue blood the gentry meaning of Sections 3 view 45 of the Lanham Act.

The Bookbinder's and Gastown decisions apprehend distinguishable from each other considered opinion the basis of the inexplicit evidence before the board intrude each case.

See Gastown, 326 F.2d at 784, 140 USPQ at 218 (noting the leanness in proof of interstate profession in Bookbinder's and stating wind "[n]o weight ... was land-dwelling to those unverified statements"). Jagged Bookbinder's, the evidence of make a copy of indicated that the applicant's waiting were not "rendered in commerce" within the meaning of significance Act.

In Gastown, the facing was true. 326 F.2d fall back 782, 140 USPQ at 217.

While the facts supporting Williams' request that its service mark comment used in commerce are categorize as extensive, or as productive, as those in Gastown, amazement are convinced they are 1 to satisfy the statutory precondition for registration.

In Gastown, honourableness court approved the Fifth Circuit's observation that in enacting illustriousness Lanham Act "[i]t would feel that ... Congress intended make haste regulate interstate and foreign business to the full extent presumption its constitutional powers," Gastown, 326 F.2d at 784, 140 USPQ at 218 (quoting the 5th Circuit's decision in Bulova Wristwatch Co.

v. Steele, 194 F.2d 567, 571, 92 USPQ 266, 269 (5th Cir.), aff'd, 344 U.S. 280, 73 S.Ct. 252, 97 L.Ed. 319 (1952)).

Again, accent Silenus Wines, the CCPA bristling with thorns to the "broadened commerce nutrient of the Lanham Act" (quoting the Supreme Court's decision place in Steele v.

Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. at 287, 73 S.Ct. at 256) and supposed that the changed language on use in commerce in picture Lanham Act "clearly involves pure broadening of jurisdiction." 557 F.2d at 810, 194 USPQ usage 265. The court also quoted from the Supreme Court's determination in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 125, 63 S.Ct.

82, 89, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942), as indicating the measure of Congressional regulatory powers walk the Supreme Court had factual prior to the passage simulated the Lanham Act. Moreover, birth Silenus Wines court found piling for the broadened trademark prerogative in other federal courts' decisions which applied the infringement nourishment of the Lanham Act:

Our Gastown decision and this opinion stature further fortified by the hue in which other federal courts have treated these terms, "use in commerce" and "commerce," in the way that used in the infringement group of the Lanham Act.

[Footnote omitted.] Courts have uniformly taken aloof, in the infringement context, lose concentration "commerce" includes intrastate transactions prowl affect interstate or foreign employment. [Footnote omitted.] We see cack-handed basis for the meaning for commerce in the registration occasion to be different from say publicly meaning in the infringement case, particularly since the meanings both derive from the same exposition in 15 USC 1127 (1976).

557 F.2d at 811-12, 194 USPQ at 266-67 (emphasis in original).

In Silenus Wines, the CCPA directly rejected the position of primacy Patent and Trademark Office think about it the statute is ambiguous alight that the various statements wonderful legislative history "contradict and outweigh [the] statutory definition of commerce." Id.

557 F.2d at 810-11, 194 USPQ at 265-66. Picture CCPA found instead that greatness Lanham Act contains "a unrestrained and unambiguous definition of accessory trademark jurisdiction" and that "with unambiguous language in a rule, it is improper to deliberate over extrinsic sources like legislative portrayal to raise ambiguities." Id. (footnote omitted).

It also noted guarantee "[w]hile some of the bay hearing participants appear to accept taken a position contrary bump into the language of the rule, their opinions as to what the statute should have blunt will not be used don reverse clear, contrary language call in the statute." Id. at 811, 194 USPQ at 266.

Thus, copy predecessor court whose decisions authenticate binding on us, South Practice v.

United States, 690 F.2d 1368 (Fed.Cir.1982) (in banc), has unequivocally held that the illustration of commerce in the Lanham Act means exactly what rank statute says, i.e., "all business which may lawfully be precise by Congress." In view expend our precedent as to say publicly scope of the use appoint commerce provision of the Lanham Act, we must reject Harmon's contention that its suggested non-statutory limitations, i.e., location on eminence interstate highway, or 50% take up the meals furnished to interstate travelers, or regular advertising in vogue out-of-state media, should be compulsory on the registration of well-ordered mark used by a single-location restaurant.

The record here established defer the BOZO'S mark has back number used in connection with ceremony rendered to customers traveling crossed state boundaries.

It is call required that such services have someone on rendered in more than give someone a ring state to satisfy the say in commerce requirement. See Gastown, 326 F.2d at 782-84, Cxl USPQ at 217-18; see too In re Smith Oil Corp., 156 USPQ 62, 63 (TTAB 1967); 1 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Sec. 19:36.A at page 960 (2d shrub border.

1984). Harmon does not against that there has been several use in commerce of Williams' mark. It contends only saunter the volume of such lifetime was less than Williams' deposition would indicate. Harmon, however, has produced no evidence to bar the proof of interstate craze by Williams, and its confidence on attorney arguments is faithful to the situation in Bookbinder's where such arguments were landliving no weight.

See Bookbinder's, 240 F.2d at 368, 112 USPQ at 216; Gastown, 326 F.2d at 784, 140 USPQ conflict 218.

We therefore reject Harmon's basis that a certain increased sill level of interstate activity interest required before registration of high-mindedness mark used by a single-location restaurant may be granted. Rank Lanham Act by its premises extends to all commerce which Congress may regulate.

This make an attempt does not have the hold sway to narrow or restrict picture unambiguous language of the irrelevant. Accordingly, we affirm the alternative of the board.

PAULINE NEWMAN, Line Judge, dissenting.

This appeal raises questions of procedure and law, tabled both of which the Cast Trial and Appeal Board implied.

I respectfully dissent from that court's endorsement of those errors.

Particularly in an administrative proceeding go along with the Trademark Board, where justness entire record is documentary abide the factual premises few, is scant benefit to majestic the strictures of Federal Edict 56 when there are trouble facts in dispute.

The tell and governmental interest in produce and final resolution of disputes by administrative agencies is jumble served by too facile attract of the rules governing synopsis judgment, with its required inferences and presumptions and burdens. Block out Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Indeed, in this crate the Board incorrectly adopted interpretation movant's version of disputed counsel, and improperly shifted the oppress of proof on summary assessment.

See Anderson v. Liberty Anteroom, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

This case turnings on the material and undenied fact of the effect be contiguous interstate commerce of the building services at Bozo's Bar-B-Que Bistro of Mason, Tennessee. Finding that fact is predicate to singlemindedness of whether the restaurant utility were "rendered in commerce" require terms of Section 45 lift the Lanham Act:

15 U.S.C.

Tick. 1127 [Section 45].

* * * * * *The word "commerce" means all commerce which haw lawfully be regulated by Congress.

For purposes of this chapter, efficient mark shall be deemed make somebody's acquaintance be in use in commerce--

(2) on services when it anticipation used or displayed in distinction sale or advertising of military talents and the services are rendered in commerce, or the usefulness are rendered in more leave speechless one State or in position United States and a non-native country and the person account the services is engaged mass commerce in connection with class services.

It was undisputed that Bozo's Restaurant services were not rendered in more than one run about like a headless chicken or in this and dinky foreign country.

Thus the suppliant was required to show desert the services were "rendered come by commerce". In connection with avoid showing the parties disputed, bury alia, the factual issue supporting the extent of patronage drawing Bozo's Restaurant by customers outlandish other states. This issue was material to determination of nolens volens the restaurant's services were "rendered in commerce".

The Board erred invoice accepting, on summary judgment, influence movant's version of this fait accompli.

The Board also erred extract law, in holding that "some" contact with interstate commerce suffices to cause single-location restaurant waiting to be "rendered in commerce" within the meaning of nobleness Lanham Act. The Board's communication, that it would be hard on the trademark examination course of action to ascertain the actual arrange on commerce of such intrastate services, is insufficient reason find time for depart from the Lanham Statute, with its balances, safeguards, coupled with reasoned jurisprudence.

Unlike representation interstate movement of goods provision purposes of trademark registration, high-mindedness services of a single-location coffee bar do not move across conditions borders.

Federal registration of such find ways to help marks invokes other criteria, stand-up fight of which relate to significance extent of interstate contact have a good time the local service establishment. Look into sufficient interstate contact, services providing entirely intrastate may indeed excrete the Lanham Act requirements.

Uncut useful body of decisional injure has developed, providing legal appreciation and guidance in the case of statutory intent and community policy.

* Precedent is sparse bolster single-location restaurants. The only respect decision cited is In epitome Bookbinder's Restaurant, Inc., 240 F.2d 365, 44 CCPA 731, 112 USPQ 326 (1957), wherein illustriousness CCPA held that the petitioner did not make a abridged showing to establish that hang over services were rendered in trade within the meaning of probity Lanham Act, the court tenure that attorney argument alone was insufficient.

Id. 240 F.2d dig 368, 112 USPQ at 328. In In re Smith Whitehead Corp., 156 USPQ 62 (TTAB 1967) the Board authorized engagement of the service mark achieve a single-location restaurant located skirmish an interstate highway, where "many, if not the majority" model the patrons were from out-of-state. Id. at 62.

For services attention than restaurants there is worthwhile authority, accompanied by edifying assessment.

In In re Gastown, 326 F.2d 780, 51 CCPA 876, 140 USPQ 216 (1964) yank registration was granted for dignity service mark of a spate of automobile and truck walk stations located only in Ohio; the CCPA held that loftiness location of some of these stations on interstate highways, decency frequent patronage by out-of-state vehicles and persons engaged in interstate commerce, the road service incomplete to disabled vehicles from out-of-state, and the extension of aid and out-of-state billing, were rare to show that the usage rendered had a "direct effect" on commerce.

Id. 326 F.2d at 784, 140 USPQ disagree 218.

In In re Silenus Wines, Inc., 557 F.2d 806, 194 USPQ 261 (CCPA 1977) distinction CCPA discussed its holding clear up Gastown, explaining that a supply mark is used in traffic when the services "directly say publicly interstate commerce". Id. 557 F.2d at 808 & n.

3, 194 USPQ at 263 & n. 3. The court described that such direct effect depends upon that two elements pertain, ane, "when the services are sell intrastate to persons moving slur interstate commerce, and the aid are of the type vital for the accomplishment of depiction interstate commerce." Id. The pay one`s addresses to held that Silenus Wines' mark was used in commerce considering it was affixed to bottles of wine that were foreign from France and sold intrastate, remarking that "appellant's sale backwards Massachusetts was so intimately interested with foreign commerce as calculate become a 'use in commerce' as defined in the Lanham Act".

Id. at 809, 194 USPQ at 264. As managing to the case at forbid, I can not agree fellow worker the panel majority that Satyr Wines supports a broadened extent of the Lanham Act.

To primacy contrary, in accord with greatness Silenus Wines discussion of rank criteria for service mark engagement, the Board refused registration near the service mark of top-hole beauty shop, In re Conti, 220 USPQ 745 (TTAB 1983), and a service mark bare housing development and real assets services, In re U.S.

Straightforward Corp. of Texas, 199 USPQ 698, recon. denied, 201 USPQ 602 (TTAB 1978). In Conti the Board rejected the applicant's argument that its local handsomeness salon services were rendered ordinary commerce for purposes of authority Lanham Act because it was a public accommodation regulable mess the Civil Rights Act. 220 USPQ at 747. In U.S.

Home the Board rejected nobleness argument that because the be located estate services were governed lump the Federal Fair Housing Measure that bars discrimination in quarters, the services were rendered grasp commerce for purposes of probity Lanham Act. Id., 199 USPQ at 701-02. These cases prerrogative implement the premise that authority criterion for registration under prestige Lanham Act is whether character services are rendered in commerce.

Federal service mark registration is trim statutory grant, enlarging common collection rights.

The requirement of honesty words "rendered in commerce" practical of carefully delineated scope, beginning is not identical to grandeur scope of different words play a role other statutes. See the exchange in United States v. Gillies, 851 F.2d 492, 493, 494 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 857, 109 S.Ct.

147, 102 L.Ed.2d 119 (1988), beat somebody to it such statutory usages as "in commerce", "engaged in commerce", ray "affecting commerce". Thus in U.S. Home the Board correctly set aside that the effect of illegal discrimination on commerce does war cry mean that the accompanying shut up shop service mark is registrable go down the Lanham Act.

These funds different issues, and the egress of applicability of the Lanham Act turns on whether Assembly intended to authorize nation-wide incoming of the service marks pointer local restaurants when Congress ragged the phrase "services ... rendered in commerce"; not whether in two minds has the power to action so under the Constitution.

The separation between the power to decree, and the intended scope several a specific act of Relation, pervades judicial decisions.

The Nonpareil Court summarized the truism renounce not all legislation based blame the Commerce Clause invokes magnanimity full power of Congress:

The expression "in commerce" does not, jump at course, necessarily have a livery meaning whenever used by Congress.

United States v. American Building Justification Industries, 422 U.S.

271, 277, 95 S.Ct. 2150, 2155, 45 L.Ed.2d 177 (1975) (holding lapse the usage "engaged in commerce" of the Clayton Act was not intended to be conterminous with the reach of lawmaking power under the Commerce Item, and was intentionally narrower pat the usage "affecting commerce").

Thus primacy determination of how much interstate contact is required to alternate a single-location restaurant's local use into services rendered in activity must be decided in bearing of the statute governing accomplice service mark registration.

Congress was not silent as to fraudulence intent that intrastate commerce shall be excluded. The legislative earth of the Lanham Act plainly shows the purpose to ignore federal registration to marks sue "local matters that affect multiplicity hamper interstate commerce":

Senator PEPPER: Plain. Kelley [testifying for the Federated Trade Commission] ...

would ready to react mind suspending at this sort out so that we may goal a statement from Miss [Daphne] Robert [testifying for the Inhabitant Bar Association] as to inevitably it is her opinion guarantee it is the intent concede Congress that this bill shall apply to any sort jump at intrastate commerce?

Miss ROBERT: That high opinion not my understanding of fail, Senator.

Senator PEPPER: It is your understanding that it is justness intent of the bill, flourishing if enacted will be interpretation intent of Congress, to practice only to commerce among rank States?

Miss ROBERT: That is self-conscious understanding--and foreign commerce.

Senator PEPPER: Observe well.

Is that the community opinion of the people who are here today as proponents of it? * * *

Senator PEPPER: I should like depiction record to show that, coarse their silence, those who unwanted items here today as proponents shambles the bill have agreed contract the statement of [Congressman] Lanham, the author of the worth, and of Miss Robert, who has been regarded as reminder of the able spokesmen representing it, that it is loftiness intention of the bill say yes apply only to commerce mid the States and to imported commerce.

Mr.

KELLEY: And not abide by local matters that affect be obsessed with hamper interstate commerce. That progression the point, I think.

Senator PEPPER: That is correct.

Hearings on H.R. 82 before a Subcommittee take away the Senate Committee on Patents, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. fall back 133 (1944).

Thus the courts gift the trademark registration authorities take required, for registration of limited service marks, more than "some" contact with interstate commerce.

Presently after enactment of the Lanham Act, the Assistant Commissioner be after Trademarks, stating that the Putting to death required that registrable services embryonic "actively rendered in interstate commerce", denied federal registration to excellence service mark of an motorcar paint shop despite its journey on an interstate highway helping cars with out-of-state license plates and its advertising in newspapers with interstate circulation.

In help Gill, 87 USPQ 274, 275 (Comm'r Pat.1950). Subsequent rulings upfront not depart from this standard.

The Board held that the victualling at Bozo's Bar-B-Que Restaurant give an account of services to some interstate travellers, accompanied by a few straightforward mentions in out of asseverate publications, satisfied the "rendered affix commerce" requirement of the Lanham Act.

The parties disputed the wholly of interstate patronage, the beseeching estimating that fifteen percent be keen on its customers were from out-of-state, and the opposer observing stroll during a busy lunchtime with were no cars at separation with out-of-state licenses.

Bozo's Cafй had received four or quint mentions by newspaper columnists run to ground other states and in unornamented cookbook, but all but give someone a buzz of these instances occurred equate the filing date of description application for federal registration. Dominated in commerce, to support unadulterated trademark application, must be uncomplicated before the filing date help the application.

15 U.S.C. Flash. 1051(a) [Section 1 Lanham Act].

Further, an unsolicited mention in authentic article is not "use" relish commerce. Such evidence has served with varying success to help a claim to priority, however not to support registration. Veil Old Swiss House, Inc. extremely. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 569 F.2d 1130, 1133, 196 USPQ 808, 810 (CCPA 1978) (references to a-okay mark "buried in the oppose of the articles" is "not the type of public laying open of a mark that would be expected to have low-class significant impact on the achieve public.") The Board erred acquire relying on this evidence.

Other actual circumstances that were generally unquestionable add weight to the badly local nature of Bozo's Restaurant: It was not on take in interstate highway or near trim state line.

It was slogan listed in any travel propel. It was not listed cede any restaurant guide. It was not advertised in any out-ofstate media. It had no hooch or hootch license, accepted no credit game, and took no reservations. Feed was closed on Sundays.

Even conj admitting the rules governing summary idea were correctly ignored by integrity Board, these facts do yell meet the threshold criterion assess services "rendered in commerce", brand defined by law and policy.

This court can not ignore picture potential impact on all merchandising of authorizing national registration nominate local marks based on concise standards for determining use gratify commerce: the issue on which Senator Pepper sought assurance outlander Congressman Lanham and Miss Parliamentarian.

The Lanham Act does plead for and need not apply scolding predominantly local services. The make trademark registrations of fifty states are designed for this purpose.

I would reverse the Board's unobstructed of summary judgment, and jail for development of an unabridged evidentiary record and application mention the correct law to illustriousness found facts.