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

23 F.2d 895, 57 App. D.C. 358, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3245
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided December 5, 1927·No. No. 1986·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

Appellant, Three in One Oil Company, opposed the registration of the trade-mark “3 in 1” by appellee, Boston Brass Company, which alleges use of the trade-mark on boiler relief valves, while appellant has for many years been manufacturing and selling oil under its registered trade-mark “3 in 1.”

It is clear that no confusion can arise from the use of the marks on the respective goods to which the mark is applied. It is insisted, however, that appellee company is appropriating the corporate name of the Oil Company. It is unnecessary to discuss this proposition, in view of our decision this day delivered in Three in One Oil Co. v. Lobl Manufacturing Co., 57 App. D. C. -, 23 F.(2d) 893.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

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

Three in One Oil Co. v. Boston Brass Co., 23 F.2d 895, 57 App. D.C. 358, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3245 (D.C. Cir. 1927).

23 F.2d 895 (Three in One Oil Co. v. Boston Brass Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Time, Inc. v. Viobin Corporation
40 F. Supp. 249 (E.D. Illinois, 1941)