In re Fitzpatrick Bros.

D.C. Circuit

In re Fitzpatrick Bros.

48 App. D.C. 241, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2391

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 2, 1918

DocketNo. 1178

StatusPublished

This text of 48 App. D.C. 241 (In re Fitzpatrick Bros.) 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 Fitzpatrick Bros., 48 App. D.C. 241, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2391 (D.C. Cir. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Pobb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appeal by Fitzpatrick Bros, from a decision of the Patent Office denying appellant’s application for the registration of the word “Kitchen” as a trademark for a cleaning’ and scouring preparation for household uses.

The specimens of the mark filed with the application, and which the applicant stated. under oath truly represented the mark sought to be registered, showed that the word “Kitchen” was not used alone, but with “Klenzer,” with the common initial letter “K,” thus: “K\^“.” The Patent Office ruled that the word “Kitchen” had not been shown to have been used as a trademark, and further that it would have been descriptive if it had. The Trademark Act provides for the registration of actual, and not fictitious, trademarks. This we already have [243]*243determined. Re Motz Tire & Rubber Co. 40 App. D. C. 487; Quaker City Flour Mills Co. v. Quaker Oats Co. 43 App. D. C. 260.

The failure to show trademark use renders it unnecessary to consider any other question.

The decision is affirmed. Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Pobb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appeal by Fitzpatrick Bros, from a decision of the Patent Office denying appellant’s application for the registration of the word “Kitchen” as a trademark for a cleaning’ and scouring preparation for household uses.

The specimens of the mark filed with the application, and which the applicant stated. under oath truly represented the mark sought to be registered, showed that the word “Kitchen” was not used alone, but with “Klenzer,” with the common initial letter “K,” thus: “K\^“.” The Patent Office ruled that the word “Kitchen” had not been shown to have been used as a trademark, and further that it would have been descriptive if it had. The Trademark Act provides for the registration of actual, and not fictitious, trademarks. This we already have [243]*243determined. Re Motz Tire & Rubber Co. 40 App. D. C. 487; Quaker City Flour Mills Co. v. Quaker Oats Co. 43 App. D. C. 260.

The failure to show trademark use renders it unnecessary to consider any other question.

The decision is affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 App. D.C. 241, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-fitzpatrick-bros-cadc-1918.