Legal Opinion
Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. Hartogensis
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided May 26, 1930No. Patent Appeal 2330PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LENROOT, Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents dismissing the petition of appellant for the cancellation of a trade-mark registered by appellee, and refusing cancellation thereof.-
Appellee, through its predecessor in business, was granted registration on April 8, 1913, No. 90988, of a trade-mark comprising the word “Arrow” and the representation of; an arrow piercing the letters of the word,' used upon collar buttons, plated with precious' metal in Class 28, Jewelry and precious metalware.
Appellant claims adoption and use of substantially the same…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hanover Star Milling Co. v. MetcalfSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- McLean v. FlemingSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Menendez v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- California Packing Corporation v. Tillman & BendelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Larry Marshak v. Faye Treadwell Treadwell Drifters, Inc the Drifters, Inc. Bowen Agency Ltd/admiral TalentCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. WrightCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- Willson v. Graphol Products Co., IncCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
- Dwinell-Wright Co. v. National Fruit Product Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1942
- Mantle Lamp Co. of America v. Aladdin Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1935
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.