Legal Opinion

Magitex Co. v. John Hudson Moore, Inc.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided March 6, 1946No. 5121PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connell, Judge

This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, acting through the First Assistant, 62 USPQ 170, affirming the decision of the Examiner of Trade-Mark Interferences sustaining the opposition of appellee to the application of appellant filed October 21, 1942,.for registration of the word “Huntsman,” continuously used by appellant since July 1,1942, as a trade-mark for after shaving lotion.

In its notice of opposition appellee relies upon its ownership of the trade-mark “Sportsman” registered on December 23, 1941, for after shaving lotion, hair lotion, and talcum powder.

The…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lactona, Inc. v. Lever Bros.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
  2. McKesson & Robbins, Inc. v. American Foundation for Dental ScienceCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1945
  3. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. MacGregorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Dad's Root Beer Co. v. AtkinDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1950
  2. United Drug Co. v. Mercirex Co. (Two Cases)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
  3. Lever Bros. v. HormelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949
  4. Bordo Products Co. v. B. A. Railton Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949
  5. Continental Coffee Co., Inc. v. Continental Foods, IncCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953

3 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