Decree as to infringement based on use on one class of goods con-
clusive as to use on another of same descriptive properties.
** Rock Spring Distilling Company and Rosenfield v. W. A. Gaines
& Company__
Between two parties pleaded in bar to suit on same mark against
another defendant. ** Rock Spring Distilling Company and
Rosenfield v. W. A. Gaines & Company___
Descriptive matter objected to must be eliminated, disclaimer not
sufficient. * In re Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc_---
Descriptive terms not registrable under the act because of long use
except under the ten-years clause. Hercules Powder Company
v. Newton, Commissioner of Patents_.
Descriptive word not registrable unless secondary meaning has been
acquired, indicating product of particular manufacturer. Detroit
Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co_-
Not subject to appropriation. M. Werk Co. v. Grosberg et al__
Existence of not essential to right of action for unfair competition.
d Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co‒‒‒‒‒‒‒
Footwear of leather and of rubber so closely related that public
should not be required to discriminate between goods put out by
one of two users of the same mark. *Boston Rubber Shoe Com-
pany v. Abramowitz____
For a series of literary publications must be arbitrary, not the name
of one of the series. *In re The Page Company-.
Function to designate goods of particular trader and protect him
against sale of another's product as his. ** United Drug Com-
pany v. Theodore Rectanus Company.
Interference and cancelation, registration under law of 1881 may be
canceled under Act of February 20, 1905. Hudnut v. Phillips
v. Mack‒‒‒‒‒
Interference between applicant and registrant, decisions adverse to
registrant, his registration may be canceled. Hudnut v. Phillips
v. Mack.
Law not intended to conflict with copyright law or extend its opera-
tion, the owner enjoys exclusive rights as long as the copyright
continues, and upon its expiration privileges expire and use of
descriptive name becomes publici juris. *In re The Page Com-
pany____
Manufacturer doing its legal duty in distinguishing its product not
responsible for substitution by tricky retailers. M. Werk Co.
v. Grosberg et al_____
Mark adopted and used for many years, registered under State laws
and the act of 1881, though not under act of 1905, use confined to
certain locality, adopted and used by another for similar goods in
distant locality, first user estopped from setting up continued use
as infringement. ** United Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus
Company---
Mark referring to contents rather than to wrapper not registrable for
wrapper. Ex parte Adams__
Method of applying mark immaterial so long as knowledge of origin or
source of manufacture of goods was conveyed to purchaser. * Rice-
Stix Dry Goods Company v. The Schwarzenbach, Huber Company__
84150-19- -3
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______
Foreign trader, rights dependent on submission to jurisdiction.
Hudnut v. Phillips v. Mack__.
Law not to be avoided by phonetic spelling. * In re The American
Sugar Refining Company__
Refused where dominant feature is descriptive of goods. * In re
Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc___
Required by statute for each class of goods upon which used.
Ex parte Vacuum Oil Company.
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---
Rights limited to localities where used.
Theodore Rectanus Company___
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.
Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company.
Self-raising pancake-flour and cornmeal same descriptive properties
* Williams v. John B. A. Kern & Sons-
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_.
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.
d Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al----
"Cashmere," for oil, not geographical and registrable. Ex parte
Crew Levick Company---
'Infallible," for smokeless powder, refused registration as a
descriptive term. d 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--
"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.
Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc----
"Orchestrola," for phonographs, refused registration on the word
"Orchestrelle," for automatically-operated organs. * The
Thomas Manufacturing Company v. The Aeolian Company_____
"Pollyanna" refused registration for a series of books as a de-
scriptive term.
Sealhyde," for carriage-cloth, refused registration as descriptive
term. Ex parte American Rubber Company_.
"Tag," for soap, refused registration as descriptive term. M.
Werk Co. v. Grosberg et al_---
"Wizard
66
" 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--
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_
Title to, question of abandonment. Rice-Stix Dry Goods Company v. The Schwarzenbach, Huber Company--
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
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 trademark not essential to right of action. Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co‒‒‒‒‒‒
What constitutes. 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. Segal et al
Decided January 11, 1918.
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."
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
|