Legal Opinion
United Shoe MacHinery Corp. v. Compo Shoe MacHinery Corp.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided February 29, 1932No. Patent Appeals 2879-2881PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BLAND, Associate Judge.
This ease involves three appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, the first and second of which (Nos. 2879 and 2880) are opposition proceedings in which appellant opposed, in the first opposition, the registration by appellee of the word “Compo” as a trade-mark for adhesive shoe cement used in making “Compo” shoes, and, in the second opposition, opposed the registration of the same trade-mark for a shoe cement softener.
The third appeal (No. 2881) is a cancellation proceeding brought by appellant against the Bresnahan Shoe Company, for which its…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Massachusetts v. MellonSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Canal Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Tyler v. Judges of the Court of RegistrationSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- A. Bourjois & Co., Inc. v. KatzelSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Le Blume Import Co. v. CotyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- William B. Ritchie v. Orenthal James SimpsonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Chromium Industries, Inc. v. Mirror Polishing & Plating Co., Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1978
- Dewalt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
- Andrew J. McPartland, Inc. v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1947
- De Walt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.