In re United Drug Co.

44 App. D.C. 209, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2708
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedNovember 29, 1915
DocketNo. 994
StatusPublished

This text of 44 App. D.C. 209 (In re United Drug 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 United Drug Co., 44 App. D.C. 209, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2708 (D.C. Cir. 1915).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

United Drug Company appeals from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents denying registration of the word “Stork” as a trademark for rubber nipples.

The registration was denied because the Commissioner had on file a certificate of incorporation granted in the state of Maine, in December, 1904, to a corporation entitled “the Stork Company.”

The case is governed by the decision in Asbestone Co. v. Philip Carey Mfg. Co. 41 App. D. C. 507.

It is not important that the Stork Company is not engaged in the manufacture of rubber nipples. The purpose of its incorporation seems, however, to have been the manufacture of water-proof goods.

The corporate name of the Stork Company is protected by the express provisions of the trademark act.

The Commissioner was right, and his'decision is affirmed, and this decision will be certified to the Commissioner of Patents.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 App. D.C. 209, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-united-drug-co-cadc-1915.