Legal Opinion · Dissent

Eureka Williams Corp. v. McCorquodale

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 3, 1953No. Patent Appeal 5917Published

1DissentO’Connell, Judge

Appellee appropriated “Omatic,” the dominant feature of appellant’s widely advertised mark, and combined that suffix with the descriptive prefix “Hot” to form the compound trade-mark “Hotomatic,” under which he sells automatic gas-burning hot water heaters. The late Judge Hatfield branded procedure of that kind as illegal in the case of Bon Ami Co. v. McKes-son & Robbins, Inc., 93 F.2d 915, 916, 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 826, where he pointed out:

“If all that a newcomer in the field need do in order to avoid the charge of confusing similarity is to select a word descriptive of his goods and…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Champion Spark Plug Co. v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Commissioner of PatentsSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  3. Jewel Tea Co., Inc. v. KrausCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1951
  4. Sinko v. Snow-Craggs CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1939
  5. Trico Products Corporation v. Delman Corporation Delman Corporation v. Trico Products CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1950

8 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