Odol Corp. v. De Oto

D.C. Circuit

Odol Corp. v. De Oto

23 F.2d 776, 57 App. D.C. 355, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3236

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 5, 1927

DocketNo. 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 23 F.2d 776 (Odol Corp. v. De Oto) 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

Odol Corp. v. De Oto, 23 F.2d 776, 57 App. D.C. 355, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3236 (D.C. Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN OESDEL, Associate Justice.

The Odol Corporation filed an opposition against the registration of “O. D. O.” as a trademark for liniment to be applied externally. The mark of the opposer is “Odol,” used as a trade-mark on a preparation for “the teeth, mouth, and breath.”’

We agree with the Commissioner of Patents that the goods on which the marks are used are. not of the same descriptive properties, and that the marks are not so similar as to lead to confusion in trade.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

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

VAN OESDEL, Associate Justice.

The Odol Corporation filed an opposition against the registration of “O. D. O.” as a trademark for liniment to be applied externally. The mark of the opposer is “Odol,” used as a trade-mark on a preparation for “the teeth, mouth, and breath.”’

We agree with the Commissioner of Patents that the goods on which the marks are used are. not of the same descriptive properties, and that the marks are not so similar as to lead to confusion in trade.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F.2d 776, 57 App. D.C. 355, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odol-corp-v-de-oto-cadc-1927.