In re William Schluderberg & Son

D.C. Circuit

In re William Schluderberg & Son

269 F. 680, 50 App. D.C. 164, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1907

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 1920

DocketNo. 1361

StatusPublished

This text of 269 F. 680 (In re William Schluderberg & Son) 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 William Schluderberg & Son, 269 F. 680, 50 App. D.C. 164, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1907 (D.C. Cir. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing to register the word “Highland” as a trade-mark for ham, corned beef, and cooked shoulders.

It appearing that Matthews & Co. have registered and long used, as a trade-mark in connection with the sale of canned meats, the representation of a Highlander and the words “Highland Brand,” the decision must be affirmed, for it is obvious that confusion would be likely to result, should registration be accorded appellant’s mark.

Affirmed.

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 to register the word “Highland” as a trade-mark for ham, corned beef, and cooked shoulders.

It appearing that Matthews & Co. have registered and long used, as a trade-mark in connection with the sale of canned meats, the representation of a Highlander and the words “Highland Brand,” the decision must be affirmed, for it is obvious that confusion would be likely to result, should registration be accorded appellant’s mark.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 F. 680, 50 App. D.C. 164, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-william-schluderberg-son-cadc-1920.