First of all, for the reasons I elaborate on in the research I just sent you a link to, I think the whole Paschall hammer thing is a red herring and a myth with respect to Plumb, the TM dispute, and the later suits. When Plomb bought Paschall in 1925, to increase their manufacturing capacity, Paschall wasn't even making hammers, and that was 2 full years before the USPTO would grant and then almost immediately pull back their TM. The first Paschall hammers Plomb sold were bumping hammers, which Plomb was already making. They didn't offer Paschall ball-pein hammers until 1932. That doesn't sound like a Plumb appeasement strategy to me. It sounds like a way of branding the tools being made at a separate facility separately from tools branded Plomb. Plumb's later suit makes it clear that their issue was never about any specific tools, it was about Plomb using their company name as a brand to sell tools in general. To make matters worse, the TM had a plumb-bob in it! When Plomb stylized their name so that the O looked like a plumb-bob, they were just begging for trouble. Ten years later, they got it.
As for your hammer, I'll have to look at it closer in the morning. Maybe it's because I'm on my phone, but I don't see a Paschall marking.
