Inc. v. Yuma Mfg. Co., 296 F.Supp. 1291, 1294 (D.Colo.1969). A trademark, on the other hand, is a distinctive mark of authenticity, by means of which the products of particular manufacturers, or the vendible goods of particular merchants, may be identified and distinguished from the similar products of others. See, Id. at 1493, citing In re TradeMark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 87, 25 L.Ed. 550 (1879), and Koppers Co., Inc. v. Krupp-Koppers, 517 F.Supp. 836, 840 (D.Penn.1981). Indeed, the right to use a trademark is granted by the Federal Government, on an exclusive basis, for a specified period of time. See, Title 15 U.S.C. §§ 1058 and 1059. Here, there has been no showing that the trademarks, which the Plaintiff holds on its “Featherwate” a 23 U.S.P.Q. 865, 867, 1984 WL 63623 (N.D.Ill.1984) (<HOLDING>). ' Accordingly, we recommend that the
holding that even though plaintiffs claim was barred by the cgia because it sounded in tort attorney fees were not appropriate where it was a contract claim that was pleaded and thus a contract claim that was dismissed holding that claim of newness was a nonaetionable benign boast holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim holding that regarded as claim was reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability