In re J. L. Hudson Co.

D.C. Circuit

In re J. L. Hudson Co.

6 F.2d 720, 56 App. D.C. 22, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2119

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 1925

DocketNo. 1748

StatusPublished

This text of 6 F.2d 720 (In re J. L. Hudson Co.) 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 J. L. Hudson Co., 6 F.2d 720, 56 App. D.C. 22, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2119 (D.C. Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing registration to the word “Luzona,” as a trademark for women’s underwear; the ground of the decision being that the word is merely geographical.

The object of the inhibition against the registration of a descriptive or geographical term is to prevent one dealer from securing a monopoly of a term which, with equal propriety, may be used by other dealers in vending like goods. Thus “Luzon,” being the name of an island in the Philippine group, is open to common use. But appellant is not seeking registration of that word. “Luzona” is no more than suggestive of “Luzon,” and its registration would prevent no one from using the geographical term.

The ease cited by the Patent Office, namely, Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Co., 220 U. S. 446, 31 S. Ct. 456, 55 L. Ed. 536, is not apposite. The word there involved was “Rubberoid,” which was clearly descriptive of the character or quality of the roofing product to which it was applied. Here the adopted word is' not Luzon misspelled, but a coined and different word, and hence registrable.

The decision is reversed.

Reversed.

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

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing registration to the word “Luzona,” as a trademark for women’s underwear; the ground of the decision being that the word is merely geographical.

The object of the inhibition against the registration of a descriptive or geographical term is to prevent one dealer from securing a monopoly of a term which, with equal propriety, may be used by other dealers in vending like goods. Thus “Luzon,” being the name of an island in the Philippine group, is open to common use. But appellant is not seeking registration of that word. “Luzona” is no more than suggestive of “Luzon,” and its registration would prevent no one from using the geographical term.

The ease cited by the Patent Office, namely, Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Co., 220 U. S. 446, 31 S. Ct. 456, 55 L. Ed. 536, is not apposite. The word there involved was “Rubberoid,” which was clearly descriptive of the character or quality of the roofing product to which it was applied. Here the adopted word is' not Luzon misspelled, but a coined and different word, and hence registrable.

The decision is reversed.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F.2d 720, 56 App. D.C. 22, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-j-l-hudson-co-cadc-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack