Re Application of Oneida Community

41 App. D.C. 260, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 2014
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedDecember 1, 1913
DocketNo. 868
StatusPublished

This text of 41 App. D.C. 260 (Re Application of Oneida Community) 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
Re Application of Oneida Community, 41 App. D.C. 260, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 2014 (D.C. Cir. 1913).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Eobb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This appeal is from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents refusing to register, as a trademark fob spoons, a “circular or O-shaped film having distinct edges, on the back of the spoon bowl.” ' . .

[261]*261Obviously, as ruled by the Patent Office, this is an attempt, under the guise of trademark registration, to obtain a monopoly of a functional feature of an article of manufacture. The patent to Blackman, No. 70,156, dated October 29, 1867, long since expired, covered a means to prevent the wearing off of the precious metal from the contact points of a spoon by placing thereon an extra film of precious metal. In other words, there is no substantial difference between the “extra film of precious metal” placed on the back of the spoon at the point of contact by Blackman, and the “substantially circular or O-shaped film” on the back of appellant’s spoon. A monopoly may not be revived in this way. Edna Smelting & Ref. Co. v. Nathan Mfg. Co. 30 App. D. C. 487; Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co. 163 U. S. 169, 41 L. ed. 118, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1002. Regardless of the patent to Blackman, this alleged trademark should not be registered, for clearly no functional feature of a device is a proper subject for trademark registration. Uerz v. Loewenstein, 40 App. D. O. 277. Decision affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Singer Manufacturing Co. v. June Manufacturing Co.
163 U.S. 169 (Supreme Court, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 App. D.C. 260, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 2014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/re-application-of-oneida-community-cadc-1913.