Legal Opinion

Stephen L. Bartlett Co. v. Arbuckle Bros.

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided January 2, 1923No. 1512PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent-Office in a trade-mark opposition proceeding, reversing the decision of the Examiner of Interferences, and sustaining the opposition to the registration by appellant,.applicant below, of the word “Havesome”' as a trade-mark on cocoa. Shoi-tly before applicant adopted this mark, the opposer, appellee here, adopted the word “Drinksum” as a trademark for coffee.

It has been held that cocoa and coffee are goods of the same descriptive properties, within the meaning of the Trade-Mark Act (Comp. St. § 9485 et seq.). Baker Co., Limited, v.…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Solventol Chemical Products, Inc. v. LangfieldCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
  2. Ostermoor & Co. v. Rose Spring & Mattress Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1925
  3. Hillyard Chemical Co. v. Vestal Laboratories, Inc. Vestal Laboratories, Inc. v. Hillyard Chemical CoCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
  4. Vacuum Oil Co. v. Gargoyle Textile Corp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API