Malone v. Weyer

D.C. Circuit

Malone v. Weyer

13 F.2d 320, 56 App. D.C. 349, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3556

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 1926

DocketNo. 1859

StatusPublished

This text of 13 F.2d 320 (Malone v. Weyer) 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

Malone v. Weyer, 13 F.2d 320, 56 App. D.C. 349, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3556 (D.C. Cir. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office dismissing appellant’s opposition to the registration by appellee of the word “Pom-Po-Lay,” together with a figure, within a border, as a trade-mark for chemical preparations for the treatment or smoothing out of hair; the ground of the opposition being a prior registration and use of the mark “Poro” on similar preparations.

The Examiner of Interferences ruled that the two marks are not deceptively similar, within the meaning of the Trade-Mark Act-. The Assistant Commissioner, after finding that the two marks “are clearly distinguishable,” also ruled that appellant had failed to prove title to the mark “Poro” through an assignment from the prior owner. Since we agree with the Patent Office that the two marks are not deceptively similar, it is unnecessary to consider the other question.

The decision is affirmed.

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 dismissing appellant’s opposition to the registration by appellee of the word “Pom-Po-Lay,” together with a figure, within a border, as a trade-mark for chemical preparations for the treatment or smoothing out of hair; the ground of the opposition being a prior registration and use of the mark “Poro” on similar preparations.

The Examiner of Interferences ruled that the two marks are not deceptively similar, within the meaning of the Trade-Mark Act-. The Assistant Commissioner, after finding that the two marks “are clearly distinguishable,” also ruled that appellant had failed to prove title to the mark “Poro” through an assignment from the prior owner. Since we agree with the Patent Office that the two marks are not deceptively similar, it is unnecessary to consider the other question.

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 F.2d 320, 56 App. D.C. 349, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malone-v-weyer-cadc-1926.