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
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided January 15, 1945·No. No. 8796·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

146 F.2d 669 (Companhia Antarctica Paulista v. Coe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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