Hunter v. Russell

23 F.2d 774, 57 App. D.C. 353, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3232
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedDecember 5, 1927
DocketNo. 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 F.2d 774 (Hunter v. Russell) 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
Hunter v. Russell, 23 F.2d 774, 57 App. D.C. 353, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3232 (D.C. Cir. 1927).

Opinion

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

Appellant Hunter sought the cancellation of appellee Russell’s registered trade-mark, comprising a circle above which, and conforming to the outline of the circle, is printed the words “Mondamin Farm.” Within the circle is a pictorial representation of a person milking, and the word “Choeomilk,” Choc

printed thus -0- within the circle, close Milk

to the upper portion of the pictorial representation. This mark is used on chocolate containing milk and cream preparations in liquid form.

The petitioner, Hunter, claims that he is damaged- by the registration, of the Russell mark, and alleges prior use of the word “Choc-o-lishus” as a trade-mark for chocolate syrup and other preparations, including chocolate flavored milk. It is urged by the petitioner that the dominant characteristic of the Russell trade-mark, the abbreviation of the word “Choco” for “chocolate,” is so similar to “Choc-o-lishus,” the dominating feature of which he asserts is “Choco,” as to cause confusion in trade.

We agree with the Commissioner that the abbreviation “Choco” is not the dominant feature of the Russell trade-mark. Nor do we find any such similarity between the two marks as in our judgment would lead to confusion in trade.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

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

Related

Hunter v. F. Hoffman & Sons, Inc.
29 F.2d 799 (D.C. Circuit, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 F.2d 774, 57 App. D.C. 353, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-russell-cadc-1927.