Ostermoor & Co. v. Rose Spring & Mattress Co., No. 1730.

CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtMARTIN, Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices
PartiesOSTERMOOR & CO., Inc., v. ROSE SPRING & MATTRESS CO.
Docket NumberNo. 1730.
Decision Date06 April 1925

55 App. DC 307, 5 F.2d 268 (1925)

OSTERMOOR & CO., Inc.,
v.
ROSE SPRING & MATTRESS CO.

No. 1730.

Court of Appeals of Columbia.

Submitted March 11, 1925.

Decided April 6, 1925.

Rehearing Denied April 24, 1925.


5 F.2d 269

H. F. Riley, of Washington, D. C., and C. C. Cousins, of New York City, for appellant.

E. W. Bradford, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

ROBB, Associate Justice.

This is a trademark opposition proceeding, in which the tribunals of the Patent Office accorded the right of registration to the appellee of the following mark, in use since 1912:

For about 20 years appellant has used a composite mark, consisting of a label on which is a circle divided into quarters, two of the quarters containing representations of a mattress and bearing the legend

"Trade Mark Reg. U. S. Pat. Of."

In the other two quarters are similar representations of a mattress with a half figure of a woman and the same legend. Since the filing of the opposition, the two marks first mentioned have been canceled, as purely descriptive. See Int. Bedding Co. v. Ostermoor & Co., 319 O. G. 235. The correctness of this decision is apparent from an ocular inspection of these marks. It well might be questioned whether the two other alleged marks, standing alone, are not subject to the same objection, for the dominating feature of each is a mattress, and the half figure of a woman is so subordinate and incidental as not to be sufficiently distinctive to overcome this objection. See McIlhenny's Son v. Trappey & Sons, 51 App. D. C. 273, 275, 277 F. 615.

In Weiss & Co. v. Stuart, Keith & Co. (Patent Appeal No. 1690) 4 F.(2d) 442, at present term, we reaffirmed a prior ruling in Planten v. Canton Pharmacy Co., 33 App. D. C. 268, to the effect that a party may not segregate his trade-mark, and, by registering each of its features separately, prevent the registration by another of any particular part of the mark as actually used, when such registration and use by another would cause no confusion in the trade or prejudice to the first user. That ruling is applicable here. Appellant's mark obviously should be considered in its entirety, for determination of the question whether concurrent use of the opposing marks would be likely to result in confusion, and, in determining that question, we must give due effect to the rule that the adoption of a suggestive mark by one trader will not preclude all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Induct-O-Matic Corp. v. Inductotherm Corp., INDUCT-O-MATIC
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 31 Octubre 1984
    ...suggestive marks provided only that they be not deceptively similar. Ostermoor & Co. v. Rose Spring & Mattress Co., 55 App.D.C. 307, 5 F.2d 268; Citrus Soap Company v. Royal Lemon Products Company, 8 Cir., 2 F.2d 972. The word "solvent" is purely descriptive of any cleaning compound whether......
  • Solventol Chemical Products v. Langfield, No. 9215.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 6 Abril 1943
    ...suggestive marks provided only that they be not deceptively similar. Ostermoor & Co. v. Rose Spring & Mattress Co., 55 App.D.C. 307, 5 F.2d 268; Citrus Soap Company v. Royal Lemon Products Company, 8 Cir., 2 F.2d 972. The word "solvent" is purely descriptive of any cleaning compound whether......
  • Egan v. United States, No. 4239.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 6 Abril 1925
    ...if any individual member of the jury, after having considered all of the evidence in the case, and after consultation with his fellow 5 F.2d 268 jurors, should entertain such reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, it is his duty not to surrender his own conviction simply because the balance......
3 cases
  • Induct-O-Matic Corp. v. Inductotherm Corp., INDUCT-O-MATIC
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 31 Octubre 1984
    ...suggestive marks provided only that they be not deceptively similar. Ostermoor & Co. v. Rose Spring & Mattress Co., 55 App.D.C. 307, 5 F.2d 268; Citrus Soap Company v. Royal Lemon Products Company, 8 Cir., 2 F.2d 972. The word "solvent" is purely descriptive of any cleaning compound whether......
  • Solventol Chemical Products v. Langfield, No. 9215.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 6 Abril 1943
    ...suggestive marks provided only that they be not deceptively similar. Ostermoor & Co. v. Rose Spring & Mattress Co., 55 App.D.C. 307, 5 F.2d 268; Citrus Soap Company v. Royal Lemon Products Company, 8 Cir., 2 F.2d 972. The word "solvent" is purely descriptive of any cleaning compound whether......
  • Egan v. United States, No. 4239.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 6 Abril 1925
    ...if any individual member of the jury, after having considered all of the evidence in the case, and after consultation with his fellow 5 F.2d 268 jurors, should entertain such reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, it is his duty not to surrender his own conviction simply because the balance......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT