Legal Opinion

In re Irving Drew Co.

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided April 7, 1924No. 1620PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, Acting Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, which held that the words “Arch Rest” were descriptive of the goods, and affirmed the decision of the Examiner, refusing to register the words as a trade-mark for boots, shoes, and slippers.

It appears from the record that the mark “Arch Rest” was first used on boots and shoes in 1909, by the Utz & Dunn Company, and that the applicant, the Irving Drew Company, began to use it in 1912. Prior to the decision of the Commissioner, the applicant purchased the business of the Utz & Dunn Company, and all…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Florence Mfg. Co. v. J. C. Dowd & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1910
  2. Wonder Mfg. Co. v. BlockCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1918
  3. E. W. Burt & Co. v. Coes & Young Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
  4. Application of Toledo Scale Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1922

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. General Shoe Corporation v. RosenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
  2. Trustees for Arch Preserver Shoe Patents v. James McCreery & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
  3. Barber-Colman Co. v. Overhead Door CorporationCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933
  4. Dixie Rose Nursery v. CoeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1942
  5. Barber-Colman Co. v. Overhead Door CorporationCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933

2 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