In re American Steel Foundries

D.C. Circuit

In re American Steel Foundries

258 F. 160, 49 App. D.C. 16, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 5, 1919

DocketNo. 1218

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 258 F. 160 (In re American Steel Foundries) 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

In re American Steel Foundries, 258 F. 160, 49 App. D.C. 16, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175 (D.C. Cir. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Patent Office refused registration of the word “Simplex” as a trade-mark for brake riggings, on the ground that it was merely the name of a corporation, and several corporations are referred to in the opinion of the Office denying the registration which have the word “Simplex” as the predominating word in their respective names. The refusal is in accord with our decisions. Asbestone Co. v. Carey Mfg. Co., 41 App. D. C. 507; In re United Drug Co., 44 App. D. C. 209; Mansfield Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 44 App. D. C. 205; Burrell v. Simplex Electric Heating Co., 44 App. D. C. 452; Simplex Electric Heating Co. v. Ramey Co., 46 App. D. C. 400.

For the reasons given by the Assistant Commissioner in his opinion, which appears in the record, where he reviews all the contentions of the applicant in the light of the adjudged cases, we affirm the decision of the Patent Office.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Patent Office refused registration of the word “Simplex” as a trade-mark for brake riggings, on the ground that it was merely the name of a corporation, and several corporations are referred to in the opinion of the Office denying the registration which have the word “Simplex” as the predominating word in their respective names. The refusal is in accord with our decisions. Asbestone Co. v. Carey Mfg. Co., 41 App. D. C. 507; In re United Drug Co., 44 App. D. C. 209; Mansfield Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 44 App. D. C. 205; Burrell v. Simplex Electric Heating Co., 44 App. D. C. 452; Simplex Electric Heating Co. v. Ramey Co., 46 App. D. C. 400.

For the reasons given by the Assistant Commissioner in his opinion, which appears in the record, where he reviews all the contentions of the applicant in the light of the adjudged cases, we affirm the decision of the Patent Office.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 F. 160, 49 App. D.C. 16, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-american-steel-foundries-cadc-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack