In re Maclin-Zimmer-McGill Tobacco Co.

262 F. 635, 49 App. D.C. 181, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1579
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided January 5, 1920·No. No. 1241·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a Patent Office decision refusing registration to the words “El Gallo,” as a trade-mark for tobacco.

“El Gallo” is the Spanish for “The Rooster,” and it appears that “Our Rooster” and a picture of a rooster have been registered as a trade-mark for tobacco by another concern. In Nestle & A. S. C. Milk Co. v. Walter Baker & Co., 37 App. D. C. 148, 152, we ruled that “Milkmaid” and a pictorial representation of a milkmaid meant the same to the public, and that the “right to employ one necessarily includes the right to employ both.” It matters not that appellant has employed the Spanish language, instead of English. In re Bradford Dyeing Ass’n, 46 App. D. C. 512.

The decision was right, and is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

In re Maclin-Zimmer-McGill Tobacco Co., 262 F. 635, 49 App. D.C. 181, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1579 (D.C. Cir. 1920).

262 F. 635 (In re Maclin-Zimmer-McGill Tobacco Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shunk Manufacturing Company v. Tarrant Manufacturing Company
318 F.2d 328 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1963)
Pink Lady Corporation v. L. N. Renault & Sons, Inc.
265 F.2d 951 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1959)
Lightnin Chemical Co. v. Royal Home Products, Inc.
197 F.2d 668 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1952)
In Re Riverbank Canning Co.
95 F.2d 327 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1938)
In Re Northern Paper Mills
64 F.2d 998 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1933)