Three in One Oil Co. v. Boston Brass Co.

D.C. Circuit

Three in One Oil Co. v. Boston Brass Co.

23 F.2d 894, 57 App. D.C. 357, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3244

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 5, 1927

DocketNo. 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 23 F.2d 894 (Three in One Oil Co. v. Boston Brass 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

Three in One Oil Co. v. Boston Brass Co., 23 F.2d 894, 57 App. D.C. 357, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3244 (D.C. Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

. This appeal is by the Three in One Oil Company from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, dismissing the oppositions to the registration of the trade-mark “2 in 1,” used on boiler relief valves by appellee Boston Brass Company. In this case, as in the ease of Three in One Oil Company v. Lobl Manufacturing Co., 57 App. D. C. -, 23 F. (2d) 893, this day decided, there is no confusion that can possibly arise from the use of the marks, since the goods on which the marks are used are not of the same descriptive properties. Neither can confusion arise, or any right inure to the opposer, from the registration of the mark, since “2 in 1” is [895]*895not even a part of appellant’s corporate name.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

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

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

. This appeal is by the Three in One Oil Company from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, dismissing the oppositions to the registration of the trade-mark “2 in 1,” used on boiler relief valves by appellee Boston Brass Company. In this case, as in the ease of Three in One Oil Company v. Lobl Manufacturing Co., 57 App. D. C. -, 23 F. (2d) 893, this day decided, there is no confusion that can possibly arise from the use of the marks, since the goods on which the marks are used are not of the same descriptive properties. Neither can confusion arise, or any right inure to the opposer, from the registration of the mark, since “2 in 1” is [895]*895not even a part of appellant’s corporate name.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F.2d 894, 57 App. D.C. 357, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/three-in-one-oil-co-v-boston-brass-co-cadc-1927.