Asbestone Co. v. Philip Carey Manufacturing Co.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents dismissing an opposition to the registration of a trademark. ‘ The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: This is a trademark opposition. Appellee, The Philip Carey Manufacturing Company, filed an application in the Patent Office for the registration of the word “Asbestone” as a trademark for hard asbesto boards.
Read the full summary
Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents dismissing an opposition to the registration of a trademark. ‘ The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: This is a trademark opposition. Appellee, The Philip Carey Manufacturing Company, filed an application in the Patent Office for the registration of the word “Asbestone” as a trademark for hard asbesto boards. It alleges adoption and continuous use since June 1, 1912. Notice of opposition was filed by appellant, The Asbestone Company, a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania on June 3,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Van Oksdee
It must be conceded that- appellee is seeking to register the name of a corporation in existence at the time it adopted and began to use the mark. In general terms this is forbidden under sec. 5 of the trademark act of February 20, 1905, which provides, in part, as follows: “Provided, That no mark which consists merely in the name of an individual, firm, corporation, or association, not written, printed, impressed, or woven in some particular or distinctive manner or in association with a portrait of the individual * * * shall be registered under the terms of this act.” Sec. 6 of the act…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Brown Chemical Co. v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Manufacturing Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Selvage v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · 1882
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lawyers Title Ins. Co. v. Lawyers Title Ins. CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- American Throwing Company, Inc. v. Famous Bathrobe Company, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
- Schnur & Cohan, Inc. v. Academy of Motion Picture Arts and SciencesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955
- Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Linseed Oil Paint Co. (Now by Change of Name Minnesota Paints, Inc.), Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Linseed Oil Paint Co. (Now by Change of Name Minnesota Paints, Inc.), Minnesota Linseed Oil Paint Co. (Now by Change of Name Minnesota Paints, Inc.) v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
- Henry a La Pensee, Inc. v. Societe a Responsabilite Limitee Henry a La PenseeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957