Legal Opinion
Oakland Chemical Co. v. Bookman
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided December 5, 1927No. 166PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
L. HAND, Circuit Judge,
(after stating the facts as above). As to validity, the question is whether the mark was “descriptive,” or only “suggestive,” of tho goods sold. A “descriptive” mark is had for two reasons: First, because it does not in fact advise the public that the goods come from a “single source” (Coca-Cola v. Koke Co., 254 U. S. 143, 146, 41 S. Ct. 113, 65 L. Ed. 189); second, because, if it did, since the word describes the goods, the protection of the mark would trench upon common speech which should do the same (Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Co., 220 U. S. 446, 31 S.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- William R. Warner & Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Commissioner of PatentsSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Keasbey v. Brooklyn Chemical WorksNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- National Nu Grape Co. v. GuestCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1947
- Bookman v. Oakland Chemical Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
- Caron Corp. v. Maison Jeurelle-Seventeen, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1938
- General Controls Co. v. Hi-G, IncDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1962
- Dietene Co. v. Dietrim Co.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1954