In re Swan & Finch Co.

259 F. 990, 49 App. D.C. 94, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1702
District Court, District of Columbia·Decided June 2, 1919·No. No. 1225, Patent Appeals·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing to register the word “Textul” as a trade-mark “for an oil to clean wool and worsteds,”, on the ground that it is descriptive of character or quality, within the meaning of the Trade-Mark Act (Act Feb. 20, 1905, c. 592, 33 Stat. 724 [Comp. St. §§ 9485, 9487-9511,9513-9516]):

We agree with the Patent Office that “Textul” is a misspelling of the word “textile,” and, since an oil for cleaning textiles, such as those covered by this application, might properly be designated as “textile oil,” that “Textul” is not registerable.

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

In re Swan & Finch Co., 259 F. 990, 49 App. D.C. 94, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1702 (D.D.C. 1919).

259 F. 990 (In re Swan & Finch Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

A. & H. Transportation, Inc. v. Save Way Stations, Inc.
135 A.2d 289 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1957)
Dietene Co. v. Dietrim Co.
121 F. Supp. 785 (D. Nebraska, 1954)
California Cyanide Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.
40 F.2d 1003 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1930)
Jell-Well Dessert Co. v. Jell-X-Cell Co.
17 F.2d 159 (S.D. California, 1927)