Legal Opinion

Fort Dodge Laboratories, Inc. v. E. L. Haeussler

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 21, 1956No. Patent Appeal 6209PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

COLE, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Patents, affirming a decision of the Examiner of Interferences, dismissing an opposition by Fort Dodge Laboratories, Inc., appellant here, to an application by E. L. Haeussler for registration of the trademark “Fortogenol” for “a multivitamin and mineral product.” Appellant did not rely on any prior registration, but based its opposition on its use of the trademark “Fortogen” on “an internal and external antiseptic and antiferment for veterinary use.”

The Examiner of Interferences held that there was no…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Application of MyersCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
  2. Myers v. Polk Miller Products Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
  3. Horlick's Malted Milk Corp. v. HorlickCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1944
  4. The Quaker Oats Company v. St. Joe Processing Company, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
  5. General Mills, Inc. v. FreedCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1937

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. American Sugar Refining Company v. Hans J. Andreassen (Doing Business as Domino Products Co.)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API