Legal Opinion

In re Pierce Arrow Motor Car Co.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided January 8, 1932No. 2870PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLenroot, Judge

This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, affirming the action of the examiner of trade-marks in refusing to register, as a trade-mark for automobile vehicles and their component parts, a pictorial representation of the front end of an automobile enclosed within a hexagonal border. A copy of the application, other than the statement required by the rules of the Patent Office, is not found in the record, but it seems to be conceded that it was filed under the provisions of the trade-mark registration act of Fébruary 20, 1905.

In the record we find, in the statement of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hercules Powder Co. v. NewtonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Application of the Singer Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
  2. Application of McIlhenny CompanyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
  3. Application of McIlhenny CompanyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
  4. Correct Printing Co. v. Ramapo River Printing Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1936
  5. Hangzhou Mengku Technology Co., Ltd and Fuzhou Mengku Technology Co., Ltd v. Shanghai Zhenglang Technology Co., Ltd, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board2024

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