In re American Steel Foundries

258 F. 160, 49 App. D.C. 16, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided May 5, 1919·No. No. 1218·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

258 F. 160 (In re American Steel Foundries) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Crown Overall Mfg. Co. v. Bee-Bee Frocks, Inc.
187 F.2d 170 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1951)
American Steel Foundries v. Robertson
269 U.S. 372 (Supreme Court, 1926)
Arkell Safety Bag Co. v. Safepack Mills
289 F. 616 (D.C. Circuit, 1923)