Re Barrett Manufacturing Co.

41 App. D.C. 513, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2210
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided February 2, 1914·No. No. 894·Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This appeal is from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents refusing to register the word “Hydronon,” with a paragraph beneath, as a trademark for bituminous paint, the ground of the refusal being the prior registration of the word “Hydrocide” as a trademark for the same class of goods. We agree with the Commissioner that the words are so nearly alike as to be likely to cause confusion in trade when applied to goods of the same descriptive properties, and therefore affirm the decision. Seubert v. Santaella & Co. 36 App. D. C. 441; [514]*514Breitenbach v. Rosenberg, 37 App. D. C. 102; Northwestern Consol. Mill. Co. v. Mauser & Cressman, 162 Fed. 1004; Florence Mfg. Co. v. Dowd, 171 Fed. 122. Affirmed.

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

Re Barrett Manufacturing Co., 41 App. D.C. 513, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2210 (D.C. Cir. 1914).

41 App. D.C. 513 (Re Barrett Manufacturing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Florence Mfg. Co. v. Dowd
171 F. 122 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1909)
Northwestern Consol. Milling Co. v. Mauser
162 F. 1004 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1908)