Legal Opinion
MacEachen v. Tar Products Corporation
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 4, 1930No. Patent Appeal 2342PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GARRETT, Associate Judge.
Appellant, MaeEaehen, on .December 13, 1926, filed application No. 241,429 for registration of the word “Hexol” as a trade-mark for disinfectants; the product being in Patent Office class 6, “Chemiéals, Medicines and Pharmaceutical Preparations.” Continuous use was alleged since September 2, 1926.
On December 31, 1926, the Examiner in the Patent Office rejected the application “in view of registered trade-mark No. 217,109, Tar Products Corporation, Providence and East Providence, R. I., Aug.,24, 1926.”
Thereupon applicant on February 3,1927, filed application for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Michigan Fruit Growers, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
- State v. CarrWashington Supreme Court · 1930
3Cited by8 opinions
- Shoe Corporation of America v. Juvenile Shoe Corporation of AmericaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
- Proctor & Gamble Co. v. J. L. Prescott Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1935
- Standard Oil Co. v. EpleyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
- Trustees for Arch Preserver Shoe Patents v. James McCreery & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- Englander v. Continental Distilling Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.