in the fullness of time. In the meantime we must be prepared to protect ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic. There can be no liberty without law. Liberty and law are as intimately linked as the law of demand and supply. It is difficult to give a people liberty unless they are prepared to retain it. You may give them an opportunity for liberty. You may open a gate for them. But if they have not prepared themselves they may lose their freedom almost overnight. An ignorant people cannot remain free. Courage, education, industry, and faith are priceless ingredients of the retention of liberty by any people, anywhere, anytime. How can a man protect his rights if he does not understand them? And how can he understand them without a trained and disciplined mind and a knowledge of the past? One must search the musty pages of history to find the secrets of a nation's greatness and the cause of a nation's fall. A noted writer once said, "Liberty lives in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law and no court can save it." Even today in some countries ambitious men seal off or pollute the sources of information as a means of holding their power and thus destroying freedom. This is not a new idea. It is an old idea with a new name. It has been tested and discarded many times in the past. It is not a move forward, but rather a going backward. Some of these nations are gradually changing, but others are continuing back, back in their wrong-way flight. They cannot stand in open competition with free peoples. If they continue their backward flight I am persuaded that, within a few years, into the black night of forgetfulness we may hear the swish of their vanishing wings. In our own country it was only about one hundred years ago that the United States Court of Claims was established as a court, on recommendation of President Lincoln, where for the first time in our own history a citizen might sue his government. For more than a hundred years the judges and officials of the Court of Claims have had pride in undertaking to live up to the tradition that this court, as the Chief Justice has so well said, represents the conscience of the Nation. Through these years justice as between the citizen and his government has been its guiding star. We believe and everyone recognizes that the whole universe is governed by law. It is everywhere and in everything. It is found in every bud and blossom and leaf and tree, in every rock and hill and vale and mountain, in every spring and rivulet and river. The planets and stars in their flight are governed by the perfection of law. If one of the planets should jump the track and run wild there would be a wreck of worlds. Likewise, without the reign and rigid enforcement of our own laws, all our splendid idealism will go down in a crash of materialism. It must not be. It therefore gives me infinite and inexpressible pleasure to have a part in dedicating this building as the home of the two courts-the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and the Court of Claims where any citizen, who feels he has been wronged, may seek redress or compensation as a matter of right. May that right never be lost. CHIEF JUDGE COWEN : We thank you, Judge Jones, for the eloquence of your language, for the wisdom of your thoughts, and for your continuing devotion to the court. As this ceremony closes, we extend our thanks to all who have participated in it. Among these, we thank the Armed Services Joint Color Detail for the parade of the colors. We also thank the wonderful Marine Band for its music. (Applause.) We thank the District officials for closing the street so we could use it for this purpose, and we thank the police for their protection. We are especially grateful to Mr. William Donlin, Jr., Regional Director of Business Affairs, and Mr. Charles Rotchford, Area Building Manager, both of the General Services Administration, for the many hours of work they have devoted to the preparation of the program and in making the physical arrangements for this ceremony. You are a fine audience and before we close, I should like to ask one favor of you. After the benediction, which follows immediately, please remain in your seats for a few minutes during the postlude music so that the judges and commissioners can return to their chambers and be on hand to welcome those who desire to see the building. The benediction today will be given by Dr. Edward G. Latch, Chaplain of the House of Representatives. BENEDICTION DOCTOR LATCH: And now unto God's gracious mercy and protection we commit you. The Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. The Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace, justice under law and, to all our people, everlasting good will. Amen. The public is welcome to inspect selected areas of the building. CASES ADJUDGED IN UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS 384 F. 2d 1016; 155 USPQ 462 GUIDING EYES FOR THE BLIND, INC. v. GUIDE DOG FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND, INC. (No. 7816) TRADEMARKS 1. ABANDONMENT-IN GENERAL Junior interference party has burden of proving that senior party abandoned mark; it must be shown that senior's conduct was such as to cause a loss in significance of mark as an indication of origin. 2. ESTOPPEL-TRADEMARKS-IN GENERAL Junior interference party's failure to show that senior party's course of conduct caused mark to lose its significance as an indication of origin is not cured by reliance on equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence under 15 USC 1069. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, November 2, [Affirmed.] 1967 Appeal from Patent Office, Interference No. 6,090 Raphael Semmes (G. Mallet Prevost, of counsel) for appellant. [Oral argument October 6, 1967 by Mr. Semmes and Mr. Houghton] Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and Judges RICH, SMITH, Almond, KIRKPATRICK* SMITH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The single issue here is whether appellant has established its right to registration of the service mark “GUIDING EYES" as against appellee's right to register the same mark. The issue was determined and decided against appellant by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in an interference proceeding, pursuant to 15 USC 10671 and Rule 2.96 of the Trademark Rules of Practice.2 *Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 1 § 1067. Interference, opposition, and proceedings for concurrent use registration or for cancellation; notice; Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In every case of interference, opposition to registration, application to register as a lawful concurrent user, or application to cancel the registration of a mark, the Commissioner shall give notice to all parties and shall direct a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to determine and decide the respective rights of registration. 22.96 Issue; burden of proof. The issue in an interference between applications shall be the respective rights of the parties to registration. The issue in an interference between 701 Appellant (referred to below as "Guiding Eyes"), and appellee (referred to below as "Guide Dog"), have used the mark in issue in connection with their respective activities relating to the training and use of guide dogs for the blind.3 Testimony was taken by both parties and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board awarded the right to register the mark to appellee, 146 USPQ 611 (TTAB 1965). Appellant appeals. Appellant concedes that appellee was the first to use the mark, but argues: *** However, as the record will show the question of first use is not, of itself, the primary issue in this case. Rather, the sole issue to be determined is whether or not Appellee, who was admittedly the first user of this term, forfeited its rights in the mark by its failure over a period of years to use the mark in a manner calculated to identify Appellee as the source of the services offered. The board held that appellee had not abandoned the mark. The Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, provides, in pertinent part, that a mark shall be deemed to be "abandoned": (a) When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume. Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for two consecutive years shall be prima facie abandonment. (15 U.S.C. 1127.) No issue is raised as to appellee's exculsive and prior use of the mark for the period extending from on or about July 4, 1949 to September 1955. During this period, the record establishes that appellee used the mark “GUIDING EYES” and the design of a dog's head on its letterheads and promotional material, as well as on its guide dog harnesses. The mark also was shown on a sign on its training center property and on signs in its offices. The mark was being used in 1952 when a documentary film entitled "SECOND SIGHT," was produced in cooperation with appellee. This picture was shown in RKO Theaters throughout the country to publicize the training and use of guide dogs for the blind. Appellee purchased six of these films for its own use in soliciting contributions from the general public. Later, a second an application and a registration shall be the same, but in the event the final decision is adverse to the registrant, a registration to the applicant will not be authorized so long as the interfering registration remains on the register. The party whose application or registration involved in the interference has the latest filing date (the junior party) will be regarded as having the burden of proof. a The application of the appellee (senior party), Serial No. 119,125, was filed May 2, 1961 for "Guiding Eyes," and asserts use since on or about July 4, 1949. The application of the appellant (junior party), Serial No. 143,228, was filed April 27, 1962 for the service mark "Guiding Eyes for the Blind, Inc." and design and asserts use since November 1956. While there is a variation in the precise wording of the applications as to the nature of the services rendered, each of the parties is involved in rendering the same types of services, i.e., training guide dogs for the blind and in training blind persons in the use of such dogs. No issue has been raised by the parties concerning differences in the marks, the parties apparently conceding that "Guiding Eyes" is the dominant feature of both marks. Each party is a charitable non-profit organization whose principal income is derived from tax-exempt charitable gifts. GUIDING EYES FOR THE BLIND V. GUIDE DOG FOUNDATION 703 FOR THE BLIND film having the same title and showing the services of appellee was produced by Gaines Dog Research Center and this film was being shown before groups of persons throughout the country as late as 1964. Both films include pictures of the sign at appellee's training center. The success of the films caused appellee to consider adoption of the mark "SECOND SIGHT” for its services. Appellee's executive committee in a meeting in September 1955 discussed this matter, for the minutes of that meeting show: The use of "Second Sight" was discussed, and it was agreed that "Guiding Eyes" be continued with "Second Sight" interjected wherever feasible in publicity. It is appellant's position that, following this executive committee action in September 1955, appellee abandoned the mark in issue by replacing it with the mark "SECOND SIGHT." Thus, it is appellant's contention that when it adopted and began use of the mark "GUIDING EYES" in November 1956, it was free to do so. [1] Appellant, as the junior party, had the burden of proving appellee's abandonment of the mark. Appellant's evidence consists of the testimony of various witnesses, together with some documentary materials. In summary, this evidence is that one witness, who had voluntarily performed public relations services for appellee in connection with the mark "SECOND SIGHT" for several years in the late 1950's, stated that he had never seen the mark "GUIDING EYES" on any of appellee's literature and had no knowledge of its use of such term. Another of appellant's witnesses was a blind person who testified in effect that she was presently using one of appellee's guide dogs, and at some undisclosed time in the past, had used guide dogs procured from appellant. She then stated that she only knew of appellee by the name "SECOND SIGHT." Appellant also offered documentary evidence of appellee's use of the mark "SECOND SIGHT" on its letterheads, news releases, newsletters, advertisements, book marks and membership cards. Appellee's evidence establishes that during the period from 1946– 1949, it maintained a training center for guide dogs at Woodside, New York, on which it placed a conspicuous sign with the wording "GUIDING EYES" above the representation of a dog's head. In 1950, it moved its training center to Smithtown, Long Island, and this sign was moved to a location adjacent to the new training center. The sign remained in this location until the middle of 1955 when it was moved to the interior of appellee's property where the sign has remained from that time until the present. This sign is shown in the |