Lever Bros. Co. v. Sitroux Co.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
BLAND, Associate Judge.
Appellant has appealed here from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, affirming that the Examiner of Interferences, dismissing an opposition brought by appellant against the registration by appellee of the word “Sit-Ru-Lux” as a trade-mark for “Toilet Tissues” (toilet paper). The opposition is based upon the prior use and registration of the term “Lux” as a trademark for toilet soap, such prior use and registration being clearly shown.
The tribunals of the Patent Office pointed out that the differences in the marks and the differences in the characteristics and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. HartogensisCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
- Bon Ami Co. v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
- Kotex Co. v. McArthurCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
- In re LilienfeldCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933
- Purex Corp. v. United Drug Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Application of Fleet-Wing Corporation (Two Cases)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
- Purex Corporation, Ltd. (Assignee of Manhattan Soap Company, Inc.) v. Maryland Paper Products Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
- Campbell Products, Inc. v. John Wyeth & Bro., Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
- In re American Fork & Hoe Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
- Lever Brothers Company v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.