Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Co. v. John Sexton & Co.

D.C. Circuit

Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Co. v. John Sexton & Co.

41 App. D.C. 510, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2208

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 1914

DocketNo. 886

StatusPublished

This text of 41 App. D.C. 510 (Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Co. v. John Sexton & 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

Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Co. v. John Sexton & Co., 41 App. D.C. 510, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2208 (D.C. Cir. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The appellee’s application for the registration of “Edelweiss” as a trademark for grape juice, a non-alcoholic beverage, was allowed for publication. The Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Company, appellant, filed an opposition thereto, alleging its long prior uso, and registration of the same word as a trademark for lager beer of its manufacture.

Appellee’s demurrer was sustained and the opposition dismissed on the ground that the goods of the respective parties are not of the same descriptive properties. We concur in this conclusion. Muralo Co. v. National Lead Co. 36 App. D. C. 541, 543; Johnson Educator Food Co. v. Sylvanus Smith & Co. 37 App. D. C. 107; Hump Hairpin Co. v. DeLong Hook & Eye Co. 39 App. D. C. 484, 488.

The decision is affirmed; and the clerk will certify this decision to the Commissioner of Patents. Affirmed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The appellee’s application for the registration of “Edelweiss” as a trademark for grape juice, a non-alcoholic beverage, was allowed for publication. The Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Company, appellant, filed an opposition thereto, alleging its long prior uso, and registration of the same word as a trademark for lager beer of its manufacture.

Appellee’s demurrer was sustained and the opposition dismissed on the ground that the goods of the respective parties are not of the same descriptive properties. We concur in this conclusion. Muralo Co. v. National Lead Co. 36 App. D. C. 541, 543; Johnson Educator Food Co. v. Sylvanus Smith & Co. 37 App. D. C. 107; Hump Hairpin Co. v. DeLong Hook & Eye Co. 39 App. D. C. 484, 488.

The decision is affirmed; and the clerk will certify this decision to the Commissioner of Patents. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 App. D.C. 510, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-schoenhofen-brewing-co-v-john-sexton-co-cadc-1914.