Legal Opinion

James Heddon's Sons v. Coe

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided July 24, 1943No. Civil Action No. 15137Published

1Opinion of the Court

LUHRING, Justice.

Pursuant to R.S. § 4915, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, the plaintiff seeks to have the court authorize the registration of a trade-mark adopted by the plaintiff in connection with its fish baits.

As originally filed on the 15th day of July, 1939, the application stated: “The trade-mark is applied or affixed directly to the lures and also to the boxes in which such lures are contained.” The Examiner refused registration on the ground that the mark was “descriptive and when directly applied to applicant’s goods (fish lures) as a simulation of the ribs of a fish it fails to function as a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Columbia Mill Co. v. AlcornSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Beech-Nut Packing Co. v. P. Lorillard Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
  3. James Heddon's Sons v. Millsite Steel & Wire Works, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1942
  4. James Heddon's Sons v. Millsite Steel & Wire Works, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1940
  5. In re Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1925

1 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