Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

R

Page

Radio Corporation v. Dubilier Condenser Corporation, 59 F. (2d) 305---
Radio Corporation v. Lord, 28 F. (2d) 257----
Railroad Supply Co. v. Elyria Iron Co., 244 U. S. 285..
Raleigh, In re, 20 C. C. P. A. 751..

663

676

666

648

Ralston Purina Co. v. Saniwax Paper Co. et al., 26 Fed. (2d) 941.
Rauber, In re, 22 C. C. P. A. 1117.

329

550

Rea v. Keller, 112 So. 211, 212 (Ala.).

651

Read Holliday & Sons, Ltd., v. Schulze-Berge et al., 78 Fed. 493-
Reagan, Ex parte, 1902 C. D. 40__.

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-
Revere Sugar Refinery v. Joseph G. Salvato, 18 C. C. P. A. 1121.
Rhodes, In re, 23 C. C. P. A. 816..

455

321, 579

434

Risdon v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68..

Rit Products Corp. v. Park & Tilford, 5 U. S. Pat. Q. 268.

[blocks in formation]

Romeike, Inc., Henry, v. Albert Romeike & Co., Inc., 167 N. Y. S. 235.-
Rosenberg Co., The, v. Phillips-Jones Company, Inc., 1921 C. D. 81.......
Rotex Surgical Appliance Co. v. Kotex Co., 18 C. C. P. A. 746–.

[blocks in formation]

Ruth Candy Co., George H., v. The Curtiss Candy Co., 18 C. C. P. A. 1471.

[blocks in formation]

Saranac Automatic Mach. v. Wirebound Patents Co., 282 U. S. 704.
Sarfert v. Meyer, 76 MS., Dec. 410...

666

437

Sauquoit Paper Co., Inc., v. Hilda Weistock, 18 C. C. P. A. 927_
Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co., 179 U. S. 19.

[blocks in formation]

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--

[blocks in formation]

Sharp & Dohme v. Parke, Davis & Co., 17 C. C. P. A. 842.

61, 322, 577

[blocks in formation]

Skookum Packers Assn. v. Pacific Northwest Canning Co., 18 C. C. P. A. 792..

[blocks in formation]

Standard Accident Insurance Co. v. Standard Surety & Casualty Co., 53
Fed. (2d) 119.___.

Standard Underground Cable Co., In re, 27 App. D. C. 320.
Starr Piano Co. v. Auto Pneumatic Action Co., 12 F. (2d) 586_.

108

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-Maid Raisin Growers of Calif. v. American Grocer Co., 17 C. C. P. A.
1034..

Sun Oil Co., In re, 18 C. C. P. A. 1421.

Sutter Packing Co. v. Piggly Wiggly Corp., 20 C. C. P. A. 1069-
Symington Co. v. National Castings Co., 250 U. S. 383.

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

[blocks in formation]

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

423

Tretolite Co. v. Darby Petroleum Corporation, 5 F. Supp. 445.

656

116, 547

Troy Wagon Works Co. v. Ohio Trailer Co., 274 Fed. 612

[blocks in formation]

Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co., 22 F. (2d) 259_

Treuting, In re, 22 C. C. P. A. 1095_.

Trumbull Steel Co. v. Routzahn, 292 F. 1009.

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.

Underwood v. Gerber, 149 U. S. 224..

Union Electric Welding Co. v. Curry, 279 Fed. 465..

United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U. S. 90.

United Lace & Braid Mfg. Co. v. Barthels Mfg. Co., 221 Fed. 456..

United Shoe Mach. Corp. v. Compo Shoe Mach. Corp. et al., 19 C. C.
P. A. 1009___

United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.:

[blocks in formation]

United States v. City Bank of Columbus, 19 How. 385.

[blocks in formation]

United States Expansion Bolt Co. v. H. G. Kroncke H. Co., 216 Fed. 186_-
United States Trust Co. v. Chicago Terminal T. R. Co., 188 Fed. 292_
United Verde Copper Co. v. Pierce-Smith Converter Co., 7 F. (2d) 13.
Urschel v. Crawford, 22 C. C. P. A. 727.---

656

655

208

54

United States v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 267

V

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

[blocks in formation]

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, In re, 21 C. C. P. A. 1121.

Walker-Gordon Laboratory Co., In re, 19 C. C. P. A. 749.
Wall v. Rolls-Royce of America, Inc., 4 Fed. (2d) 333-.

Wall Pump & C. Co. v. Gardner Governor Co., 28 F. (2d) 334.

Warner Gear Company, Ex parte, 156 Ms. Dec. 925-
Wasserfallen, In re, 54 App. D. C. 367...-

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

Weil-McClain Co. v. American Radiator Co., 19 C. C. P. A. 1137_
Weis v. Woodman, 20 C. C. P. A. 1211.

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 Electric and Mfg. Co. v. Wagner Electric and Mfg. Co., 225 U. S. 604_.

388

655

683

Westinghouse Mach. Co. et al. v. General Electric Co. et al., 207 Fed. 75-
Weston, In re, 17 App. D. C. 431

271

69

Weyenberg Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Hood Rubber Co., 18 C. C. P. A. 1449.
Wheeler, Henry H., In re, 23 C. C. P. A. 1241.

[blocks in formation]

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

Writer v. Kiwad, 20 C. C. P. A. 869..

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.
Mr. John P. Chandler for Temple.

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."

2. SAME-SAME.

"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.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »