Legal Opinion
Gray v. Armand Co.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided March 5, 1928No. 2022PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
The trade-marks in interference are substantially the same, consisting of the picture of a girl in similar style dress, slightly differing in color. The goods on which the marks are claimed to have been used by the respective parties are cosmetics, including face powders, talcum powders, creams, lipsticks, preparations for the hair, etc. The Armand Company established prior use of the design in interference.
The Examiner of Trade-mark Interferences decided in favor of the Armand Company, his decision was affirmed by the Commissioner, and the ease is here on appeal.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Columbia Mill Co. v. AlcornSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- United States v. BraunDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1889
3Cited by7 opinions
- Blue Bell, Inc. v. Farah Manufacturing Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- Electronic Communications, Inc. v. Electronic Components for Industry Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1971
- Victor Tool and MacHine Corp. v. Sun Control Awnings, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1968
- Koffler Stores, Ltd. v. Shoppers Drug Mart, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1976
- Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Mistolín de Puerto Rico, Inc.Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.