Trade-marks-Continued. Evidence, consideration by the Commissioner of Patents, of certified copies Foreign registration, effect of. d Rossmann v. Garnier...... Functional feature of device not proper subject for trade-mark registration. Goods of same descriptive properties. *H. Wolf & Sons v. Lord & Taylor. Damages not recoverable when infringer had no notice and when arti- What constitutes. d Rossmann v. Garnier. Interest in mark must be shown to entitle opposer to hearing. *Tim Judgment by default, priority awarded to applicant, but registration The word "Troy" for shirts and collars. *Tim & Co. v. Cluett, Pea- Renewal of registration, assertion of owner of continued use and title to Request for renewal not subject to examination as an original case. *Ewing, Similarity of marks— **Thaddeus Davids Company v. Davids and Davids, trading as Davids 367 Color not claimed, difference immaterial to question. *Barclay and 97 Star upon which is superimposed a circle, for saws, refused registration upon Suits for infringement, judicial notice not taken of foreign uses and customs, 101 223 اد Trade-marks-Continued. Page. Surname not subject of exclusive use as common-law trade-mark. **Thaddeus Davids Company v. Davids and Davids, trading as Davids Manufacturing Company. 367 Ten-years clause In no way detracts from force of provision against immoral or scandalous Names of persons, firms, or corporations, descriptive and geographical "Abricotine," with the initials "P. G.," on a tabaret or shield infringed "Arab" for sardines, registrable, not a geographical term. Ex parte "Cumfy-Cut," for knit undershirts, registrable, not a descriptive word. 367 223 367 223 24 25 *In re 151 "Grand-Ma's" and "Mother's" not sufficiently similar to cause con- "Hydronon," for bituminous paint, refused registration on the word 148 80 176 91 125 81 151 Use of mark on boxes containing goods, but not on goods themselves, not trade-mark use. *Tim & Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co........ 183 Validity of mark Long-continued use resolves all doubts in favor of user. W. A. Law- 76 Representation of cow, for cheese. W. A. Lawrence & Son v. The 76 V. Validity of patent: Determination of on demurrer. d Krell Auto Grand Piano Co. of America v. Story & Clark Co. et al.. 246 Patentable combination. d Krell Auto Grand Piano Co. of America v. 246 CASES CITED. The opinion of the Attorney-General is indicated by a double dagger (†), the decisions of the State Courts by a section mark (§), of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia by the letter (a), of the United States District Courts by the letter (b), of the United States Circuit Courts by the letter (c), of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia by one star (*), of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals by the letter (d), and of the Supreme Court of the United States by two stars (**).] A. **Adams v. Bellaire Stamping Co., 141 U. S., 539... 223 d Adams Electric Ry. Co., v. Lindell Ry. Co., 77 Fed. Rep., 432. 335 d American Fiber-Chamois Co. v. Buckskin Fiber Co., 72 Fed. Rep., 508.. *American Glue Co. In re, 27 App. D. C., 391.. 249 105 c American Grocery Co. v. Bennett, Sloan & Co., 68 Fed. Rep., 539. c American Sales Book Co. v. Carter-Crume Co., 125 Fed. Rep., 499.. 126 249 c American Type Founders Co. v. Damon & Peets, 140 Fed. Rep., 715.... 249 c American Wine Company v. Kohlman, 158 Fed. Rep., 830.. d Anderson v. Collins, 122 Fed. Rep., 451.. d Anderson v. Potts, 108 Fed. Rep., 379. **Andrews et al. v. Hovey, 124 U. S., 694. *Anti-Cori-Zine Chemical Co. In re, 34 App. D. C., 191.. 81 281 240 39 152 d Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 153 Fed. Rep., 1. d Atlas Mfg. Co. et al. v. Street and Smith, 204 Fed. Rep., 398 c Avery v. Case, 139 Fed. Rep., 878.... 278 354 321 321 d Avery v. Case, 148 Fed. Rep., 214.. B. c Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik v. A. Klipstein & Co., 125 Fed. Rep., 543... Baltzley v. Seeberger, C..D., 1905, 120; 115 O. G., 1329. Barber & Co. Ex parte, 81 MS. Dec., 221 d Barnes Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Walworth Mfg. Co., 60 Fed. Rep., 605.. Barrett Mfg. Co. Ex parte, C. D., 1913, 150; 192 O. G., 518.. *Barrett Manufacturing Co. In re, 37 App. D. C., 111.. **Bate Refrigerating Company v. Sulzberger, 157 U. S., 1.. **Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S., 31..... *Battle Creek Sanitarium Co. v. Fuller, 30 App. D. C., 411.. 270 33, 34, 91 78 292 176 126 63 292, 335 184, 185 136 249 335 220 188 21, 65, 67, 212, 214 17 350, 351 ΧΙΧ *Beals v. Finkenbiner, 12 App. D. C., 23.. d Beer v. Walbridge, 100 Fed. Rep., 465.. **Belding Mfg. Co. v. Challenge Corn Planter Co., 152 U. S., 100.. c Benjamin Menu Card Co. v. Rand, McNally & Co., 210 Fed. Rep., 285... *Billings v. Field, 36 App. D. C., 16.. *Blackford v. Wilder, 28 App. D. C., 535. Bloxam v. Elsee, 1 Car. & P., 567. **Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U. S., 339. Page Bogen v. Leonard, 100 MS. Dec., 300..... 63 d Borden Ice-Cream Co. v. Borden's Condensed Milk Co., 201 Fed. Rep., 510.. c Bowers v. Von Schmidt, 63 Fed. Rep., 572... 79 254 **Boyd v. Janesville Hay Tool Co., 158 U. S., 260.. *Boynton v. Taggart, 40 App. D. C., 82.... 282 122 d Boynton Co. v. Morris Co., 87 Fed. Rep., 225.. *Brill v. Washington Railway & Electric Co., 30 App. D. C., 255... Brown v. Campbell, C. D., 1914, 37; 201 O. G., 903. **Brown v. Davis, 116 U. S., 237. **Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S., 37..... 324 102 281 75 176 325 157 265 30 170 320 249 d Brown v. Stilwell Co., 57 Fed. Rep., 732 304 **Brown Chemical Company v. Meyer, 139 U. S., 540.. 147, 369 c Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. Klumpp, 126 Fed. Rep., 765.. 249 c Buckingham v. Iron Co., 51 Fed. Rep., 236.. 249 d Bundy v. Detroit, 94 Fed. Rep., 524... 243 c Burdett-Rowntree Mfg. Co. v. Standard Plunger Elevator Co., 196 Fed. Rep., 254 43.... d Burdett-Rowntree Mfg. Co. v. Standard Plunger Elevator Co., 197 Fed. Rep., 743... §Burke v. Partridge, 58 N. H., 351. **Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall., 533.. *Burson v. Vogel, 29 App. D. C., 388. C. 254 266, 293 323 164, 187 d C., B. & Q. R. Co. v. United States, 211 Fed. Rep., 12... *Cahn, Belt & Co. In re, 27 App. D. C., 173.. d Canda v. Michigan Co., 124 Fed. Rep., 486...... d Charles Boldt Co. v. Nivison, 194 Fed. Rep., 871.. Charles, Prince de Löwenstein, C. D., 1904, 24; 108 O. G., 562. d Chinnock v. Patterson Tel. Co., 112 Fed. Rep., 531.. a Coca-Cola Co. v. Deacon Brown Bottling Co. et al., 200 Fed. Rep., 105.. a Coca-Cola Co. v. Nashville Syrup Co., 200 Fed. Rep., 153.. Page. Collins Co. In re, C. D., 1872, 251; 2 O. G., 617.. **Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U. S., 460... d Columbia Motor Car Co. v. Duerr & Co., 184 Fed. Rep., 893.. d Comptograph Company v. Burroughs Adding Mach. Co., 183 Fed. Rep., 321. c Conley v. Marum, 83 Fed. Rep., 309... d Conley v. Marum, 84 Fed. Rep., 990.............. d Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co. of New York, 157 Fed. 324 184 255 157 249 249 157 358, 362, 363 d Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co. of New York, 162 Fed. 358, 362, 363 d Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Finley Rubber Tire Co., 116 Fed. Rep., 358, 362 c Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 147 Fed. Rep., 358, 362 d Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 151 Fed. Rep., 358, 362 c Consolidated Rubber Tire Company and The Rubber Tire Wheel Co., D. B. **Consolidated Valve Co. v. Crosby Valve Co., 113 U. S., 157. **Corbin Co. v. Eagle Co., 150 U. S., 38... 362 282 293 304, 305, 306 **Corn Planter Patent, The, 23 Wall., 181. 183, 319, 320, 323 99 63,282 d Crown Cork & Seal Company v. Aluminum Stopper Company, 108 Fed. Rep., *Cutler v. Leonard, 31 App. D. C., 297. D. **Dainese v. Hale, 91 U. S., 13... Davids & Co. Ex parte, C. D., 1879, 107; 16 O. G., 94. c Davids Co., Thaddeus, v. Davids et al., 190 Fed. Rep., 285.. § Dell v. Oppenheimer, 9 Nebr., 457....... 231 68 227 227, 369 227, 369 83 137 c Diamond Match Co. v. Ruby Match Co., 127 Fed. Rep., 341.... Rubber Tire Wheel Co., 220 U. S., 428.. § Dixon v. Moyer, 4 Wash., 68.. **Dobson v. Lees, 137 U. S., 258.. d Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Superior Drill Co., 115 Fed. Rep., 886.............. **Du Bois v. Kirk, 158 U. S., 58.. 254 222, 258, 291, 358, 363, 364 17 305 223 249 325 104 294 24, 25 180 240, 325 265 187 Dudley & Co., U. H. Ex parte, C. D., 1913, 128; 191 O. G., 586.. d Duncan v. Cincinnati Co., 171 Fed. Rep., 656.. d Duncan v. Stockham, 204 Fed. Rep., 781.. *Dunkley v. Beekhuis, 39 App. D. C., 494. |