William A. Rogers, Ltd. v. International Silver Co.

D.C. Circuit

William A. Rogers, Ltd. v. International Silver Co.

34 App. D.C. 413, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5821

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 1, 1910

DocketNo. 587

StatusPublished

This text of 34 App. D.C. 413 (William A. Rogers, Ltd. v. International Silver 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

William A. Rogers, Ltd. v. International Silver Co., 34 App. D.C. 413, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5821 (D.C. Cir. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This case involves the same parties as the preceding case [No. 585, ante, 410]. Appellant’s mark herein, however, is “Wm. A. Rogers A. I.,” followed by a horseshoe inclosing the letter “R.” Appellee contends that this mark is deceptively similar to its marks “Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co.” and “Wm Rogers & Son.” We think the accessories employed by appellant in its use of the word “Rogers” reasonably differentiate its mark from appellee’s. William A. Rogers, as appears in case'No. 585,, was the predecessor of appellant, and is now its manager. The use, therefore, of the mark herein involved is not without reason. The goods sold under such mark would probably be known as the “Horseshoe Brand.” At all events, the mark in its entirety is not readily to be confused with the marks of appellee.

The decision is reversed, and the clerk will certify this opinion as by law required. Reversed.

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

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This case involves the same parties as the preceding case [No. 585, ante, 410]. Appellant’s mark herein, however, is “Wm. A. Rogers A. I.,” followed by a horseshoe inclosing the letter “R.” Appellee contends that this mark is deceptively similar to its marks “Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co.” and “Wm Rogers & Son.” We think the accessories employed by appellant in its use of the word “Rogers” reasonably differentiate its mark from appellee’s. William A. Rogers, as appears in case'No. 585,, was the predecessor of appellant, and is now its manager. The use, therefore, of the mark herein involved is not without reason. The goods sold under such mark would probably be known as the “Horseshoe Brand.” At all events, the mark in its entirety is not readily to be confused with the marks of appellee.

The decision is reversed, and the clerk will certify this opinion as by law required. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 App. D.C. 413, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-a-rogers-ltd-v-international-silver-co-cadc-1910.