Legal Opinion

Langfield v. Solvit-All Corporation

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 29, 1931No. Patent Appeal 2715PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HATFIELD, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal in a trade-mark opposition proceeding from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences dismissing the opposition of appellant, and holding that appellee was entitled to the registration of the trade-mark “Solvit-All” for use on sanitary solvents for cleaning, disinfecting, and deodorizing toilet bowls and similar articles.

In its application for registration filed March 29, 1928, appellee alleged that it had used its trade-mark since November 17, 1927.

It appears from the record that appellant…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. California Packing Corporation v. Tillman & BendelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
  2. Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. HartogensisCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
  3. Sun-Maid Raisin Growers of California v. American Grocer Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
  4. Kotex Co. v. McArthurCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
  5. Revere Sugar Refinery v. SalvatoCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bon Ami Co. v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
  2. Proctor & Gamble Co. v. J. L. Prescott Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1935
  3. Solventol Chemical Products, Inc. v. LangfieldCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
  4. Meredith Pub. Co. v. O. M. Scott & Sons Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1937
  5. Moore v. Procter & Gamble Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951

1 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