R Page Radio Corporation v. Dubilier Condenser Corporation, 59 F. (2d) 305--- 663 676 Railroad Supply Co. v. Elyria Iron Co., 244 U. S. 285.. 666 648 Ralston Purina Co. v. Saniwax Paper Co. et al., 26 Fed. (2d) 941_ 329 550 Rea v. Keller, 112 So. 211, 212 (Ala.). 651 Read Holliday & Sons, Ltd., v. Schulze-Berge et al., 78 Fed. 493.. 154, 472 435 Rebuffat v. Crawford, 21 C. C. P. A. 901. 272 Remington Rand Business Service, Inc., v. Acme Card System Co., 71 F. (2d) 628... 376 Rene Beziers, etc., v. Reid, Murdoch & Co., 18 C. C. P. A. 1340- 455 321, 579 434 Risdon v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68. Rit Products Corp. v. Park & Tilford, 5 U. S. Pat. Q. 268. Romeike, Inc., Henry, v. Albert Romeike & Co., Inc., 167 N. Y. S. 235-- Rundell, In re: 18 C. C. P. A. 1290_. 107 329 507, 521 427 680 281, 419 19 C. C. P. A. 932_. 381 455 Schneider, In re: Ruth Candy Co., George H., v. The Curtiss Candy Co., 18 C. C. P. A. 1471 Saranac Automatic Mach. v. Wirebound Patents Co., 282 U. S. 704.... Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 280 U. S. 30 Sauquoit Paper Co., Inc., v. Hilda Weistock, 18 C. C. P. A. 927. Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co., 179 U. S. 19. Schmidt v. Tait, 42 App. D. C. 227... 17 C. C. P. A. 952. 54 665 666 437 127 460 651 590, 593 18 C. C. P. A. 1114. Schwartz v. Graenz, 23 C. C. P. A. 883_ Schy-Man-Ski & Sons, Helen v. S. S. S. Co., 22 C. C. P. A. 701... Sharp & Dohme v. Parke, Davis & Co., 17 C. C. P. A. 842. Skookum Packers Assn. v. Pacific Northwest Canning Co., 18 C. C. P. A. 792_ Standard Accident Insurance Co. v. Standard Surety & Casualty Co., 53 108 Standard Underground Cable Co., In re, 27 App. D. C. 320.. 331 684 Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543. Page 373, 624 525 680 126, 509 178 86 246 Stern, Irving L., In re, 17 C. C. P. A. 1234 Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. Detroit Trust Co., 44 F. (2d) 958_. Sun Oil Co., In re, 18 C. C. P. A. 1421 Sutter Packing Co. v. Piggly Wiggly Corp., 20 C. C. P. A. 1069_. Talmadge, In re, 37 App. D. C. 590 Telephone Case, 126 U. S. 1. T Texas Fidelity & Bonding Co. v. City of Austin, 246 S. W. 1026, 1028 70 69, 496 Thropp's Sons Company, John E. v. Sieberling, 264 U. S. 320 67 Tighlman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136 685 Toler v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co., 67 Fed. 168. 654 Tolfree v. Wetzler, 22 F. (2d) 214__ 34 Touraine Co. v. F. B. Washburn & Co., 286 Fed. 1020_ 5 Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co., 22 F. (2d) 259 423 Tretolite Co. v. Darby Petroleum Corporation, 5 F. Supp. 445-. 656 Treuting, In re, 22 C. C. P. A. 1095_ 116, 547 Troy Wagon Works Co. v. Ohio Trailer Co., 274 Fed. 612. 676 Trumbull Steel Co. v. Routzahn, 292 F. 1009 651 Tucker & Reeves, In re, 19 C. C. P. A. 810.. Twiss, In re, 74 F. (2d) 124___ Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U. S. 405 U Ufer et al. v. Williams, 23 C. C. P. A. 797. 94, 301 182 109 472 Underwood v. Gerber, 149 U. S. 224_ Union Electric Welding Co. v. Curry, 279 Fed. 465.. United Lace & Braid Mfg. Co. v. Barthels Mfg. Co., 221 Fed. 456 676 682 United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U. S. 90– United Shoe Mach. Corp. v. Compo Shoe Mach. Corp. et al., 19 C. C. United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.: United States v. City Bank of Columbus, 19 How. 385. United States Expansion Bolt Co. v. H. G. Kroncke H. Co., 216 Fed. 186-- 656 655 208 54 Valvona-Marchiony Co. v. Marchiony, 207 Féd. 380... 317 Van Camp Sea Food Co. (Inc.) v. The Alexander B. Steward Organizations, 18 C. C. P. A. 1415__ 459, 517 Varley Co. v. Ostheimer, 159 Fed. 655. 107 Vick Chemical Co. v. Central City Chemical Co., 22 C. C. P. A. 996_- 322, 508 Vick Chemical Co. v. Maurice E. Cordry, 19 C. C. P. A. 828.. Wagenhorst, In re, 20 C. C. P. A. 991– Wagner v. Vitamint Co., 55 App. D. C. 131. Wagner Typewriter Company v. Webster Co., 144 Fed. 405_ Walker-Gordon Laboratory Co., In re, 19 C. C. P. A. 749- Wall Pump & C. Co. v. Gardner Governor Co., 28 F. (2d) 334. Warner Gear Company, Ex parte, 156 Ms. Dec. 925- Waterman Co., L. E. v. Gordon, 72 F. (2d) 272_ Webster v. Cooper, 10 How. 54 Webster Elec. Co. v. Splitdorf Elec. Co., 264 U. S. 463. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580__ Page 183, 224, 301, 365, 590, 593 5 676 101, 596 178 508 676 463 44, 45 508 669 292, 425 28 118, 179 164 388 Weil-McClain Co. v. American Radiator Co., 19 C. C. P. A. 1137. Wellman, Charles P., In re, 18 C. C. P. A. 1214 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. United States & M. T. Co., 221 Fed. 545_ Westinghouse Mach. Co. et al. v. General Electric Co. et al., 207 Fed. 75 655 683 271 69 Weyenberg Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Hood Rubber Co., 18 C. C. P. A. 1449_. Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 20 C. C. P. A. 775. 142 Winans v. New York & Erie R. R. Co., 21 How 88. 666 Wood Manufacturing Co., John v. Servel, Inc., 22 C. C. P. A. 1370_. 391 Wright, In re, 34 App. D. C. 199... 601 Wrigley, Jr. & Company, William v. Norris, 34 App. D. C. 138. 329 286, 291 DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS FOR THE YEAR 1936 DAVIS v. TEMPLE, JR. Decided December 10, 1935 464 O. G. 3 INTERFERENCE-PRACTICE UNDER RULE 107. Where an applicant who is the junior party in an interference took no testimony but, after the expiration of the period set for this purpose and before the taking of testimony by the senior party, filed a written abandonment of the contest under the provisions of rule 107 Held that the interference was properly dissolved. ON PETITION. Messrs. Pennie, Davis, Marvin & Edmonds for Davis. SPENCER, First Assistant Commissioner: Temple, the senior party in the interference, petitions that the Commissioner instruct the Examiner of Interferences to enter a judgment awarding priority to petitioner or to grant petitioner's motion for an order to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against the junior party Davis. The Examiner of Interferences, acting under the provisions of the second paragraph of rule 107, dissolved the interference in consequence of the filing of an abandonment of the contest by Davis. The declaration of abandonment of the contest was filed on the day following the expiration of the period set for the taking of the junior party's testimony. Two days thereafter petitioner filed, in accordance with rule 119, his affidavit that the time for taking testimony on behalf of Davis had expired and that no testimony had been taken 115363°-37--1 1 and moved that Davis be placed under an order to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against him. Before receiving this motion of petitioner, the Examiner of Interferences issued his order dissolving the interference. The second paragraph of the rule states that upon the filing of an abandonment of the contest at any time prior to the taking of testimony, the interference shall be dissolved. Petitioner contends that the rule should be construed to mean that such an abandonment of the contest must be filed before the expiration of the period set for the taking of the junior party's testimony and that since in the present instance it was not, the interference should be continued for the purpose of awarding priority to petitioner. This contention cannot be agreed to. The purpose of the rule is to terminate interferences promptly when it is made to appear that one party does not desire to contest the same and a declaration to this effect is made before testimony is taken. The provision in the rule that under such circumstances the interference shall be dissolved is clear and definite. In dissolving the interference the Examiner of Interferences appears to have acted strictly in accordance with the rule. The petition is denied. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. v. OLD COLONY SHOE COMPANY Decided July 10, 1934 469 O. G. 513; 1. TRADE-MARKS CANCELLATION-NECESSITY OF TRADE-MARK USE BY PETITIONER. "A petitioner for cancellation must allege and prove technical trade-mark use in all cases except those involving marks the registration of which is prohibited by statute, as for example marks which are descriptive of the goods to which they are applied." "As between the parties to a cancellation proceeding the right to use and the right to register would appear to be co-extensive; so that the question whether a registrant was entitled to use his mark at the date of his application may be determined by reference to section 5 of the Act, which prescribes, in somewhat negative language, what marks a user is entitled to register." 3. SAME-SAME INSUFFICIENCY OF SHOWING. Where in a petition for the cancellation of the registration of a trade-mark for boots and shoes the dominant feature of which is the words "Gold Bond", petitioner alleged use of these words only in its advertising, Held the petition was properly dismissed since petitioner had alleged no facts which would entitle it to the relief sought. |