Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Trade-marks-Continued.

Must be associated with goods, no such thing as "trade-marks at
large" exists. Ex parte Adams_-

Not unfair competition where there is no competent evidence of con-
fusion of the public. M. Werk Co. v. Grosberg et al‒‒‒‒‒‒‒
Opposer may withdraw his opposition unless it is shown that dam-
age has been caused the applicant by such filing. Standard Oil
Company v. Crew Levick Company.

Opposition involving same parties, marks, and goods involved in
interference should be suspended till the interference is termi-
nated, as the Patent Office has greater liberty of action in inter-
ference than in opposition proceedings. Royal Embroidery Works,
Naday and Fleischer v. E. & Z. Van Raalte____

Proceedings, equity practice to be followed rather than prac-
tice in patent interference. Standard Oil Company v. Crew
Levick Company--

To registration of trade-marks, evidence of registration not
offered or brought to the attention of the Patent Office tribu-
nals in such proceedings not considered by the court on appeal.
* Borden's Condensed Milk Company v. Eagle Manufacturing
Company.

Petitioner for cancelation shows injury, though injury is presumed
where any descriptive word is improperly registered. * Elishewitz
v. Leyser, Green Co.‒‒‒‒‒
Prohibition against use of Government insignia not avoided because
the letters "U. S. " used in the mark form part of the initials of the
name of applicant. Ex parte United States Rubber Company------
Record shows that appellant under prior registration and use of the
word "Hub" for certain kinds of footwear is entitled to extend its
use to other goods of same class. * Boston Rubber Shoe Company
v. Abramowitz_

Registration differs from patent in that it creates no vested right,
while a patent creates a monopoly in patentee. * Fulton Water
Works Company v. Bear Lithia Springs Company-

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Foreign trader, rights dependent on submission to jurisdiction.
Hudnut v. Phillips v. Mack___.

74

Law not to be avoided by phonetic spelling. In re The American
Sugar Refining Company.

163

Refused where dominant feature is descriptive of goods.
Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc____

* In re

179

Required by statute for each class of goods upon which used.

Ex parte Vacuum Oil Company..........

45

Rights, appurtenant to an established business or trade in connection
with which the mark is employed, but no such thing as rights at
large or property rights, as in copyright or patent. ** United Drug
Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company.

369

Rights limited to localities where used. ** United Drug Company v.
Theodore Rectanus Company__.

369

Same mark employed by manufacturers in markets widely separated,
it meaning one thing in one place and another thing in the other
place, not under rule of priority of adoption and use. ** United
Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company_-_
Self-raising pancake-flour and cornmeal same descriptive properties
as flour. * Williams v. John B. A. Kern & Sons..

369

201

Trade-marks-Continued.

Shipping to branch house abroad not statutory use of trade-mark.
* Chas. A. Schieren Company v. Whittemore Bros. Corporation and
Sullivan___

Test, whether public would purchase product of one manufacturer
believing that it was that of another. Williams v. John B. A.
Kern & Sons___

d

The word "Almetal" for sash-rails, evidence insufficient to show
trade-mark rights. Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co.--
The words "Arch Builder" and "Heel Leveler," used in connection
with insoles in shoes, susceptible of appropriation as trade-marks.
• Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al‒‒‒‒‒‒

[ocr errors]

"Cashmere," for oil, not geographical and registrable. Ex parte
Crew Levick Company--

"Infallible," for smokeless powder, refused registration as a
descriptive term. Hercules Powder Company v. Newton,
Commissioner of Patents____.

"Jackie" and "Jack Tar," for waists and blouses, refused regis-
tration on the words "Jack Tar Togs," for same class of goods,
(the word "Togs" being disclaimed). Ex parte Bloom &
Millman..

"Kanelasses," for molasses, refused registration as descriptive
term. In re The American Sugar Refining Company----
"Leghornette," for hats, refused registration as descriptive term.
* Elishewitz v. Leyser, Green Co‒‒‒‒‒‒

66

Page.

151

201

281

276

51

114

47

163

139

'Metaloid," for a paste material for mending metal, refused
registration as a descriptive term. Ex parte Brady_-_-
"Moistair Heating System," for combined hot-air and hot-water
heaters, refused registration as descriptive term. * In re
Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc‒‒‒‒‒
"Orchestrola," for phonographs, refused registration on the word
"Ofchestrelle," for
*
organs. The
Thomas Manufacturing Company v. The Aeolian Company----
"Pollyanna" refused registration for a series of books as a de-
scriptive term. * In re The Page Company---.

48

179

automatically-operated

157

136

"Sealhyde," for carriage-cloth, refused registration as descriptive
term. Ex parte American Rubber Company----

[merged small][ocr errors]

"Tag," for soap, refused registration as descriptive term. M.
Werk Co. v. Grosberg et al..

298

276

"Wizard" infringed by the word "Wonder" on goods identical
in appearance. d Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al.
"Wyron," for nailing-strips for roofing-sheets, registrable, not
descriptive. Ex parte The Standard Paint Company_______
The compound words "Dri-Shod," for boots and shoes, refused
registration on "Dry-Socks because of similarity of marks.
* F. P. Kirkendall & Company v. F. Mayer Boot and Shoe
Company

[ocr errors]

66 High-Efficiency," for valves, refused registration as a descrip-
tive term. * In re Crosby Steam Gage and Valve Co‒‒‒‒‒‒‒
"Mentho-Listine " refused registration for mouth-wash and tooth-
powder on the word "Listerine." * Lambert Pharmacal Com-
pany v. Mentho-Listine Chemical Company__.

[blocks in formation]

Trade-marks-Continued.

Title to, question of abandonment. Rice-Stix Dry Goods Company v. The Schwarzenbach, Huber Company--.

Page.

150

Use of mark must be restricted to one class of goods. Ex parte
Vacuum Oil Company--

Word never formally adopted as trade-mark or trade-name not entitled to protection. "Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co__ Trade-secrets, use for ten years, goods on the market, process may not be patented when secrecy becomes difficult, thereby prolonging the monopoly. Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General Electric Co-‒‒‒‒‒ Trading with the Enemy Act, German citizens entitled to extension of time under as Germany grants reciprocal privileges. Ex parte Philipp and Schmidt

45

281

239

8

U.

Unfair competition, evidence insufficient to show trade-mark use of the
word "Almetal," for metallic sash-rails, use by another for same goods
not unfair competition. "Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co.-
Goods of one party palmed off as products of the other, valid trade-
mark not essential to right of action. Detroit Showcase Co. v.
Kawneer Mfg. Co.
What constitutes.

d

281

281

Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co_____ Use of new material in a new way, producing new results, may constitute patentable invention. Globe Knitting Works v. Ségal et al.

281

254

DECISIONS

OF THE

COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

FOR

THE YEAR 1918.

EX PARTE BOWEN.

Decided January 11, 1918.

247 O. G., 245.

1. NAME OF APPLICANT-FULL NAME.

Where the applicant's first name as signed to the papers is known as a Christian name, an affidavit that the name as given is his full name should not be required even though it is also an abbreviation.

2. SAME "FRED" FULL CHRISTIAN NAME-NO AFFIDAVIT NECESSARY.

As "Fred" is a Christian name, the decision in ex parte Smith and Kimble (C. D., 1901, 231; 97 O. G., 2533) is overruled in so far as it held that an affidavit should be required when the papers are signed "Fred."

ON PETITION.

ELECTRIC TIME-SWITCH.

Messrs. Chandlee & Chandlee for the applicant.

WHITEHEAD, First Assistant Commissioner:

This is a petition for the withdrawal of the requirement that applicant file an affidavit that his full first name is "Fred," as it appears in the application.

Rule 40 provides that full first names must be given. Order No. 600 directs that if the full first name does not appear applicant should be required to supply the omission or file an affidavit that his full name was as given.

The requirement should be made where the name as signed is obviously an abbreviation or is so seldom used otherwise that the presumption is that it is an abbreviation (see ex parte Gentry, C. D., 1888, 115; 44 O. G., 822); but where the first name as it appears is known as

1

a Christian name the requirement should not be made even though it is also an abbreviation. (See ex parte Moehn, C. D., 1903, 322; 106 O. G., 995; ex parte Faulkner, C. D., 1907, 136; 128 O. G., 886.)

It is well known that "Fred" is a Christian name and presumably is applicant's full name. The requirement should therefore be withdrawn.

The decision in ex parte Smith and Kimble (C. D., 1901, 231; 97 O. G., 2533) is overruled in so far as it held that an affidavit should be required when the papers are signed "Fred."

The petition is granted.

CREVELING V. JEPSON.

Decided March 5, 1915.

247 O. G., 745.

INTERFERENCE-RIGHT TO MAKE CLAIMS.

Record reviewed and Held that the count of this interference and the claims proposed under Rule 109 cannot be predicated upon an earlier application of C relied upon to carry his date of invention back of a reference cited against C's application involved in this interference. APPEAL from Examiners-in-Chief.

ELECTRIC REGULATION.

Mr. Charles McC. Chapman and Messrs. Sturtevant & Mason for Creveling.

Messrs. Kenyon & Kenyon for Jepson.

EWING, Commissioner:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief denying a motion made by Creveling under Rule 109 to admit the following claims:

8. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a two-armed lever having a short arm operating upon one end of the pile and a long arm extending toward the other end of the pile, a second two-armed lever having a short arm operating upon said second mentioned end of the pile and a long arm extending toward the first mentioned end of the pile.

9. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a two-armed lever having a short arm operating upon one end of the pile, and a long arm extending toward the other end of the pile, a second two-armed lever having a short arm operating upon said second mentioned end of the pile and a long arm extending toward the first mentioned end of the pile and an electro-magnet mechanically connected to each of said long arms for operating the same.

10. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a two-armed lever pivoted adjacent one end of said pile and having the shorter arm operating upon said end of the pile and its longer arm extending toward the other end of the pile, a second two-armed lever pivoted adjacent said second end of the pile and having its shorter arm operating upon said second end of the pile and its

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »