Companhia Antarctica Paulista v. Coe

146 F.2d 669, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 316, 64 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 109, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 4475
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJanuary 15, 1945
DocketNo. 8796
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 146 F.2d 669 (Companhia Antarctica Paulista v. Coe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Companhia Antarctica Paulista v. Coe, 146 F.2d 669, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 316, 64 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 109, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 4475 (D.C. Cir. 1945).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action brought under Section 4915, R.S.1 seeking registration of the word “Antarctica” as a trade-mark. The court below held that since the term was the name of a continent it came within the proviso2 of Section 5 of the Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 85, making merely geographical terms not entitled to registration.

Appellant insists that the use of “Antarctica” as applied to its product is not “merely geographical” within the terms of the proviso. It argues that the public knows that Antarctica is an uninhabited country and therefore cannot be the origin of the product, — since the use of the geographical term is fanciful it is more than “merely geographical”. We cannot read such an exception into the plain language of the act.3

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

LaTouraine Coffee Co. v. Lorraine Coffee Co.
157 F.2d 115 (Second Circuit, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
146 F.2d 669, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 316, 64 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 109, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 4475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/companhia-antarctica-paulista-v-coe-cadc-1945.