In re Western Electric Co.

D.C. Circuit

In re Western Electric Co.

39 App. D.C. 420, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 2247

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 30, 1912

DocketNo. 768

StatusPublished

This text of 39 App. D.C. 420 (In re Western Electric 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 Western Electric Co., 39 App. D.C. 420, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 2247 (D.C. Cir. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Eobb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of [421]*421Patents refusing to register the word “Inter-phone” as a trademark for telephone switching apparatus.

We agree with the Commissioner that the mark is descriptive of the character of the goods upon which it is used, and hence within the prohibition of sec. 5 of the trademark act. Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v. Peters Cartridge Co. 30 App. D. C. 505; Re Central Consumers Co. 32 App. D. C. 523 j Re Freund Bros. & Co. 31 App. D. C. 109. It is apparent from an examination of appellant’s application for registration and an analysis of the mark, that it was selected because it so aptly indicates to the public the use to which the goods hearing it are-to he put. The decision is affirmed. Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Eobb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of [421]*421Patents refusing to register the word “Inter-phone” as a trademark for telephone switching apparatus.

We agree with the Commissioner that the mark is descriptive of the character of the goods upon which it is used, and hence within the prohibition of sec. 5 of the trademark act. Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v. Peters Cartridge Co. 30 App. D. C. 505; Re Central Consumers Co. 32 App. D. C. 523 j Re Freund Bros. & Co. 31 App. D. C. 109. It is apparent from an examination of appellant’s application for registration and an analysis of the mark, that it was selected because it so aptly indicates to the public the use to which the goods hearing it are-to he put. The decision is affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 App. D.C. 420, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 2247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-western-electric-co-cadc-1912.