Legal Opinion · Dissent

Irma Hosiery Co. v. Schulman

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided March 6, 1953No. Patent Appeal 5919Published

1DissentO’Connell, Judge

The responsibility for fixing likelihood of confusion arising from the use of similar marks in the sale of merchandise rests primarily with the Commissioner of Patents who- acts through administrative experts and assistants assigned to the respective tribunals of the Patent Office. Congress has however endowed the judiciary with a supervisory power to revise and overrule their final or concurring decision where it is manifestly wrong and the evidence to the contrary is altogether convincing. Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U.S. 120, 125, 14 S.Ct. 772, 38 L.Ed. 657; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Sears,…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Morgan v. DanielsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  3. Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Manufacturing Co. v. S. S. Kresge Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
  4. Yale Electric Corporation v. RobertsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
  5. Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API