Signature of applications, practice instituted to meet emergency war
conditions prior to act of August 17, 1916. Ex parte Kramer__
Suits against the Commissioner of Patents, if brought against him in his
official capacity, should be brought in the district of his official resi-
dence, but under certain circumstances he may be sued outside of such
district. d Barrett Co. et al. v Ewing, Commissioner of Patents_____.
Suits for infringement, suits in different circuits, subject matter same and
parties in privity, court should sustain motion to affirm decree. **The
Hart Steel Company and Guilford S. Wood v. The Railroad Supply
Company
Suits under section 4915, Revised Statutes, claims in light of evidence
allowable in part. a Merrill v. Ewing, Commissioner of Patents___.
Effect of decisions of the Patent Office. d Gold et al. v. Gold__.
Issue not limited to question of priority of invention between parties,
but complainant must establish his right to the patent to entitle
him to a decree. d Gold et al. v. Gold_.
Definition of doctrine of "res adjudicata." **The Hart Steel Com-
pany and Guilford S. Wood v. The Railroad Supply Company.
Definition of the word "definite." d Kintner et al. v. Atlantic Com-
munication Co. et al____.
Powder Company et al. v. Masland et al_‒‒‒‒‒
Meaning of words used in claims varies with circumstances. d Clip-
per Belt Lacer Co. v. E-W Co. et al__
Applicant parting with his right to use mark except in limited terri-
tory not entitled to registration on the ground of exclusive use.
*Schierling v. Schulze Baking Company.
Between attempted registration of a technical trade-mark and a de-
scriptive name actual trade-mark use of the former must be shown
by opposer, while only use as trade-name is required for the latter.
*Nairn Linoleum Company v. Ringwalt Linoleum Works....
Bill in equity not maintained unless use of mark has been honest and
free from false and fraudulent representation. *Coffin Redington
Co. v. Turner__
Broad black circumferential band with red band on each side con-
fusingly similar to broad blue circumferential band for same class
of goods. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. The Firestone Tire
& Rubber Co..
Colors not valid trade-mark. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v.
The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co--‒‒‒‒‒
Construction of Trade-Mark Act. *In re Armstrong Cork Company-
Conveyance of business carries with it trade-mark used in connec-
tion therewith whether mentioned in the instrument or not.
*Macwilliam v. President Suspender Company_.
Descriptive marks to be considered in relation to their significance
to purchaser. *In re Packard Motor Car Company____
Trade-Mark Act cannot be expanded to permit registration,
every-day use immaterial. *In re Armstrong Cork Company__
Descriptive words forbidden registration under Trade-Mark Act
whether they are suggestive to the few or many. *In re Hercules
Powder Company ---.
Dissimilarity of label and package immaterial in determining con-
flict as these can be changed at will. *Goodrich Drug Company
v. Cassada Manufacturing Company----
Distinctiveness and individuality required must consist of something
which others have not equal right to use and its use must be
obvious at sight. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. The Fire-
stone Tire & Rubber Co.‒‒‒‒
Doubts as to similarity of marks to be solved in favor of public,
statutory prohibition of similarity such as to cause confusion hav-
ing been enacted for its protection. *Goodrich Drug Company v.
Cassada Manufacturing Company..
Filed in this country by the agent as his own, with the consent of the
manufacturer abroad, entry of genuine goods by a third party, pur-
chased from foreign manufacturer, cannot be prevented. d Fred
Gretsch Manufacturing Company v. Schoening and Malone, as Col-
lector, etc.‒‒‒‒‒
Foreign words and phrases, when descriptive, prohibited for the same
reason as descriptive English words. *In re Bradford Dyeing As-
sociation
Geometrical figure meaningless in itself cannot be used as a vehicle
for prohibited descriptive matter. *Nairn Linoleum Company v.
Ringwalt Linoleum Works___.
Intent and purpose of Trade-Mark Act requires omission of descrip-
tive matter, citing Johnson v. Brandeau. *Nairn Linoleum Com-
pany v. Ringwalt Linoleum Works______
Manufacturer of syrup selling under contract, may protect quality of
goods sold under his mark. d Coca-Cola Co. v. Bennett et al_____
Manufacturer selling in bulk, also bottling, purchaser of bulk may
not use manufacturers' mark on goods of his own bottling. d Coca-
Cola Co. v. Bennett et al_------
Motion to dismiss opposition to registration of trade-mark. *The
Kellogg Food Company et al. v. Kellogg Toasted Corn Flake Com-
pany----
"Mutt and Jeff" not transferable, identified with the genius and
skill of a particular person in the mind of the public. ||Star Com-
pany v. Fisher___
§ Fisher v. Star Co. Wheeler Syndicate, Inc., v. Same__
Names, individual or corporate, expressly prohibited from registra-
tion under the Trade-Mark Act. *Simplex Electric Heating Com-
pany v. The Ramey Company_
No excuse for adopting a mark closely resembling one now in use
on same class of goods, as entire vocabulary and inventive imagi-
nation are at service of one choosing a mark. *The Kaut-Reith
Shoe Company v. International Shoe Company-
No excuse for even approximate simulation of existing marks, and
when such marks are examined the points of similarity are to be
considered rather than points of difference. *The O. & W. Thum
Company v. Dickinson___
Non-registrable matter not to be included in registered mark, for if
not in its original form it is deceptive and protects no one.
O. & W. Thum Company v. Dickinson_.
Opposition to registration-
Interest of opposer. *Nairn Linoleum Company v. Ringwalt Lino-
leum Works__
Not to be dismissed on motion except in very clear case. The
Coca-Cola Company v. Cave----.
Showing of interest by opposer.
*The Kellogg Food Company
et al. v. Kellogg Toasted Corn Flake Company--
Owner of mark who grants right to use to another by license or sale
and abandons it himself cannot deprive that other of the use or
set up adverse use. *Macwilliam v. President Suspender Com-
pany_
Picture of part of shed in which hangs a slaughtered hog and sty ad-
joining with three live hogs, for powdered lye, refused registration
on representation of live hog for same goods. *E. Myers Lye Com-
pany v. The Sinclair Manufacturing Company.
Portrait of dead persons, registration cannot be refused unless its
use would be so offensive as to come under designation of scanda-
lous matter. Ex parte Jefferson Electric Mfg. Co.-‒‒‒‒‒
Public policy, under the Trade-Mark Act of February 20, 1905, there
is no power to refuse registration on that ground. Ex parte
Jefferson Electric Mfg. Co‒‒‒‒‒
Registration of trade-marks, portrait of ex-President Jefferson may
be registered for certain electric apparatus. Ex parte Jefferson
Electric Mfg. Co‒‒‒‒‒
Rights acquired by license.
*Macwilliam v. President Suspender
Rights of owner of mark. d Coca-Cola Co. v. Bennett et al__‒‒‒‒
Sherman Antitrust Act of July 2, 1890, construed. d Coca-Cola Co. v.
Bennett et al___.
Similarity of goods. *Simplex Electric Heating Company v. The
Ramey Company__.
Similarity of marks, doubts should be resolved in favor of prior user.
*The Kaut-Reith Shoe Company v. International Shoe Company---
Ten-years proviso, registration of the word " Nonpareil," because of
secondary meaning acquired by long use, etc., not permissible. *In
re Armstrong Cork Company__
The compound word "Butter-Cream," for bread, refused registration
on the words "Butter-Nut" and "Butter-Krust" for the same
goods. *Nafziger v. Schulze Baking Co‒‒‒‒‒‒
The words-
"Coca-Cola " and "Ko-Co-Lem-A" so similar that opposition
should not be dismissed on motion without proofs. The Coca-
Cola Company v. Cave-----
"E'clatant," for satin-finished piece goods, refused registration
as descriptive mark. *In re Bradford Dyeing Association____
"Eternelle," for violin strings, foreign manufacture, registered
in the United States. d Fred Gretsch Manufacturing Company
v. Schoening and Malone, as Collectors, etc‒‒‒‒‒
"Home Pride," with an illustration of a small boy on a box play-
ing with toys, refused registration on the words "Home" or
"Home Brand" for the same class of goods. *Griggs, Cooper
& Company v. The Federal Coffee Mills Company---
"Infallible," for powder, refused registration as a descriptive
term. *In re Hercules Powder Company.
"Mother Goose " and a picture representing that character riding
a broom refused registration for shoes on the word Goose
across the picture of a goose holding a key in its mouth. *The
Kaut-Reith Shoe Company v. International Shoe Company___
"Nonpareil," for tile, etc., refused registration as descriptive.
*In re Armstrong Cork Company--
"Twin-Six" refused registration as descriptive mark.
Packard Motor Car Company_.
"Velvelite," for face-powder, similar to Velvetina," for same
goods. *Goodrich Drug Company v. Cassada Manufacturing
Company
Two applicants, both refused registration, one only appeals, the other
applicant, being eliminated from case, has no right to be heard on
the appeal. *Schierling v. Schulze Baking Company_.
Where a studied attempt has been made to put on the market an
article closely resembling that of the opposer, similarity of marks
would cause confusion and the opposition should be sustained.
*The O. & W. Thum Company v. Dickinson___
Where the mark itself is not deceptive, but the accompanying statements are, registration on the ground of prior use should be denied. *Coffin Redington Co. v. Turner___.
While a word in foreign language may not be within scope of judicial notice, it is a fact capable of proof. *In re Bradford Dyeing Association__.
Trade secrets, the word " property as applied thereto defined. **E. I.
du Pont de Nemours Powder Company et al v. Masland et al_____ Trusts, fraudulent abuse of. **E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Company et al v. Masland et al.___.
[Decisions of the State Courts are indicated by a section mark (§); 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 (**).]
c Acme Flexible Clasp Co. v. Cary Mfg. Co., 96 Fed. Rep., 344. **Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall., 453.
**Agawam v. Jordan, 7 Wall., 583.
*Alaska Packers Association v. Admiralty Trading Co., 43 App. D. C., 198_ §Allegretti v. Chocolate Cream Co., 177 Ill., 129–
d American Sulphite Co. v. Howland., etc., Co., 80 Fed. Rep., 395_-d Anderson v. Collins, 122 Fed. Rep., 451_.
**Andrews v. Hovey, 123 U. S., 275_
*Andrews v. Nilson, 27 App. D. C., 451_.
*Anglo-American Incandescent Light Co. v. General Electric Co., 43 App.
D. C., 385___
**Ansonia Brass & Copper Company v. Electrical Supply Company, 144 U. S., 11
c Apollinaris Co. v. Scherer, 27 Fed. Rep., 18.
*Asbestone Co. v. Philip Carey Co., 41 App. D. C., 507_.
**Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S., 436---
c Ashley v. Tatum, 181 Fed. Rep., 840_
d Ashley v. Tatum, 186 Fed. Rep., 339
*Atkins & Co., In re E. C., 41 App. D. C., 238.
**Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S., 192_.
d Autopiano Co. v. American Player Action Co., 222 Fed. Rep., 276‒‒‒‒‒‒
Banner Cigar Manufacturing Company. Ex parte, C. D., 1909, 9; 138
O. G., 528_.
**Barbed Wire Patent, The, 143 U. S., 275_. Barber v. Spalckhaver, 41 App. D. C., 576_
b Barrett Company and Schutte, The, v. Ewing, Commissioner of Patents, C. D., 1916, 108; 228 O. G., 761__.
*Barthels Mfg. Co. v. United Lace & Braid Mfg. Co., 43 App. D. C., 200__ **Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S., 31-.
**Bauer v. O'Donnell, 229 U. S., 1------- 391, 395, 396, 399, 403, 406, 408, 409 **Belding Mfg. Co. v. Challenge Corn Planter Co., 152 U. S., 100_ **Bement v. National Harrow Company, 186 U. S., 70---
|