Reo Motor Car Co. v. Traffic Motor Truck Corp.

D.C. Circuit

Reo Motor Car Co. v. Traffic Motor Truck Corp.

4 F.2d 303, 55 App. D.C. 227, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2961

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 1925

DocketNo. 1687

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 4 F.2d 303 (Reo Motor Car Co. v. Traffic Motor Truck Corp.) 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

Reo Motor Car Co. v. Traffic Motor Truck Corp., 4 F.2d 303, 55 App. D.C. 227, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2961 (D.C. Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals in a trade-mark opposition proceeding, dismissing appellant’s opposition to the registration by appellee of “Speedboy” as a trade-mark on motor trucks. Appellant registered the mark “Speed Wagon” under the Act of March 19,1920 (41 Stat. 533 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 9516a et seq.]); registration having been refused under the Act of February 20, 1905 (33 Stat. 724 [Comp. St. § 9485 et seq.]), on the ground that the mark was descriptive.

We agree with the Patent Office that, having adopted a descriptivo mark, appellant has no right to exclude another from the use of the descriptive features of that mark, if used in such a way as to distinguish the two marks. Appellee has met this test, for the only similarity between the two marks is in the use of the descriptive word “Speed.” See Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. TheopoldReid Co., 50 App. D. C. 200, 269 F. 716; Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co., 53 App. D. C. 348, 290 F. 323;, American Tobacco Co. v. Globe Tobacco Co. (C. C.) 193 F. 1015; Feil Co. v. J. E. Robbins Co., 220 F. 650, 136 C. A. 258.

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 concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals in a trade-mark opposition proceeding, dismissing appellant’s opposition to the registration by appellee of “Speedboy” as a trade-mark on motor trucks. Appellant registered the mark “Speed Wagon” under the Act of March 19,1920 (41 Stat. 533 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 9516a et seq.]); registration having been refused under the Act of February 20, 1905 (33 Stat. 724 [Comp. St. § 9485 et seq.]), on the ground that the mark was descriptive.

We agree with the Patent Office that, having adopted a descriptivo mark, appellant has no right to exclude another from the use of the descriptive features of that mark, if used in such a way as to distinguish the two marks. Appellee has met this test, for the only similarity between the two marks is in the use of the descriptive word “Speed.” See Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. TheopoldReid Co., 50 App. D. C. 200, 269 F. 716; Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co., 53 App. D. C. 348, 290 F. 323;, American Tobacco Co. v. Globe Tobacco Co. (C. C.) 193 F. 1015; Feil Co. v. J. E. Robbins Co., 220 F. 650, 136 C. A. 258.

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 F.2d 303, 55 App. D.C. 227, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reo-motor-car-co-v-traffic-motor-truck-corp-cadc-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack