SEIDEL, GONDA,G OLDHAMMER& ABBOTT,P . C.

PATENT AND TRADEMARK ATTORNEYS

SUITE 1800 TWO PENN CENTER PLAZA
PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19102
GREGORY J LAVORGNA
DANIEL A MONACO
ROBERT H. HAMMER III
THOMAS J DURLING
STEPHEN J MEIERS

TELEPHONE (2151 568 8383

TELEX 845-215
CABLE SIPAT
TELECOP$ER 1(215)568- 5549
GROUP I, II, III
EDWARD C. GONDA
(1930-1985)
OF COUNSEL
SYLVIA A. GOSZTONYI
STANLEY H. ZEHER

AMANDA LAURA NYE*

NANCY A RUBNER
SCOTT J FIELDS
*DC & NY BARS ONLY

25 June 1987
Mr. Stanley Caterbone
FMG Advisory, Inc.
Eden Park I1
1755 Oregon Avenue
Lancaster, PA 17601
RE: Power Station
Our File : 7351-G
Dear Stan:
I have now received the results of a search pertaining to the above subject. I
have also reviewed the file forwarded with your letter of May 29. The following is my
analysis and evaluation of the right to use Power Station as defined below. As I
understand the situation, your business client, Power Station Studio, has, since 1977
operated a recording studio with a widely regarded reputation of providing high quality
recording services using state of the art equipment.
The enclosed report reveals that Power Station studio has registered the
trademark "Power Station" for sound recording. (See Reg. No. 1,433,328 registered
March 17, 1987)
You have asked me to investigate the possibility of Power Station expanding the
use of its mark into men's and women's clothing including beachwear; and for audio and
video; electronics for consumers and professionals. I have assumed that this latter
category includes radios, televisions, receivers, video cassette recorders, audio
recorders, compact disc players, turntables, amplifiers, receivers, tuners, control panels,
mixing boards and consoles, among other things.
Based upon the results of the enclosed search, it is my opinion that it would be
inadvisable for Power Station, Inc., to use its mark for clothing as aforesaid. The basis
for my opinion is Registration No. 1,431,242 registered:. March 3, 1987 for "Power
Station. To use its mark fro clothing as aforesaid. The basis for my opinion is
Registration No. The registrant claims a first date of use of April 3, 1986 for womens
clothing including swimwear and other goods as listed. Although your client has a strong
reputation, and although it has priority of use for the mark, this registrant has a strong

opposition for arguing that it has superior rights for womens clothing. One would not
ordinarily associate clothing in any way with recording studio services. Thus, your
clients rights in its mark do not appear to dominate those of the registrants.
Accordingly, use of the Power Station mark for womens (or mens) clothing would
involve a significant risk of being accused of trademark infringement. Use of the Power
Station mark for consumer and professional audio and visual electronic equipment
raises some issues, but on the whole I am of the opinion that it is permissible.
Again, I assume, as I have been informed, that the Power Station Studio is well
known and does have a good reputation for its existing services. Given that, its
movement into electronic equipment should be permissible. Here the good will
associated with its current services can be more readily extended to audiovisual
electronic equipment. The search reveals, that Manville Corporations Ken Carl Ranch
is the owner of the mark Power Station for battery operated emergency electric power
supply units. See Registration No. 1,040,308 registered May 23, 1970. In my opinion
audiovisual electronic equipment can be considered to be sufficiently unrelated to
emergency electric and power supply units to avoid a likelihood of confusion even
though the marks are identical. I reach the same conclusion regarding the pending
application by Electrical Conductors, Inc. for a multiple outlet power strip. A closer
question is raid by Goulds Supplemental Register registration for Power Station forming
and microcomputers. Goulds mark is registered on the Supplemental Register
undoubtedly because Power Station as applied to computer equipment is considered
to be descriptive. A supplemental Register registration has none of the procedural
benefits of a Principle Register registration. Moreover, if Goulds use of the mark is
limited to a particular market, which is distinct from your clients, there does not appear to
be a likelihood of confusion. Thus, Gould may be selling its computers into a specialized
commercial market if it is presently selling computers at all.
Next I call your attention to the fact that several radio stations have adopted and
reusing the trademark The Power Station in various cities throughout the United
States. Conceivably, these radio stations could object to the introduction of consumer
electronics in their market are on the ground that the use of the same mark implies
sponsorship by them. I note that all of these marks were recently registered and I
suspect that all of these radio stations are related or commonly owned. I also suspect
that the adoption of this mark may be of recent vintage. Thus, your client in any
negotiation with these people would have the advantage of being a prior user, and the
relationship between recording services and electronic equipment on the one hand and
radio station services and electronic equipment on the other hand is at least co-equal.
Thus, your client should have the dominant position. In view of the foregoing, it is my
opinion that Power Station should not adopt or use Power Station for mens and
womens clothing, but it may adopt and use the mark for professional and commercial
electronic equipment as described above with the understanding that the matter is not
entirely without doubt and issues could arise. It is, however, my opinion, based upon the
facts presently available to me, that The Power Station, Inc., should prevail if those
issues arise. If you have any questions concerning the foregoing, please feel free to call
me.
Sincerely Yours,
SEIDEL, GONDA, GOLDHAMMER
& ABBOTT, P.C.
/jg/
JSG:mp
Enclosures