Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | 1546. |
| Citation | 290 F. 326 |
| Parties | PATTON PAINT CO. (PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO., Substituted) v. SUNSET PAINT CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Submitted January 12, 1923.
Arthur E. Wallace, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
The Sunset Paint Company, located in Los Angeles, Cal., filed on the 27th of January, 1920, an application in the Patent Office for the registration of the word 'Sunset' as a trade-mark for its paints, varnishes, and painters' materials.
To that application the Patton Paint Company filed its opposition in December, 1920, and therein alleged that the word 'Sun-Proof' and a conventionalized pictorial representation of the sun had been registered in the United States Patent Office in February, 1897, as the trade-mark of the James E. Patton Company, and that that mark had been duly assigned to the opposer, and had been continuously used by the opposer, its assignors and predecessors in business, ever since the year 1896; that the Patton Paint Company, in July 1915, registered in the Patent Office as a trade-mark for its goods another conventional representation of the sun, known as the 'Sun-Face and Rays,' which trade-mark had been continuously used by the opposer ever since the 1st of January 1908; that the word 'Sunset,' sought to be registered as a trade-mark, resembled the trade-marks of the Patton Paint Company, and that the impressions conveyed by the words 'Sunset' and 'Sun-Proof,' accompanied by a pictorial representation of the sun, were so similar as to confuse and mislead the public, with resulting damage to the Patton Paint Company.
To this opposition the Sunset Paint Company made answer, denying that the trade-marks presented for registration were so similar to those of the Patton Paint Company that they would either mislead or confuse the public or damage the opposer.
Testimony was taken on the issue joined, and the Examiner of Interferences held that the word 'Sunset,' sought to be registered, was similar to the mark 'Sun-Proof' of the opposer, and therefore denied the application of the Sunset Paint Company.
On appeal to the Commissioner of Patents, the First Assistant Commissioner of Patents reversed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences and dismissed the opposition. From the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sun Banks of Florida, Inc. v. Sun Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n
...a trademark that the word "Sun-proof" was held to be sufficiently distinct from "Sunset" and "Sun Glo" .... See Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co., 290 F. 323 (D.C.Cir.1923) ("Sun-Proof" versus "Sun Glo"); Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co., 290 F. 326 (D.C.Cir.1923) ("Sun-Proof" versus......
-
Skil-Craft Corporation v. M. Lober & Associates
...v. McIlhenny Co., 5 Cir., 1922, 281 F. 23, certiorari denied, 1922, 260 U.S. 733, 43 S.Ct. 94, 67 L.Ed. 487; Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co., 1923, 53 App.D.C. 351, 290 F. 326. Defendants have also moved to require the plaintiff to separately state and number the claims set out in the ......
-
Smith v. Dental Products Co., 8278
...product as his. It has also been held that no property right is concluded by the registration of a trade-mark. Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co., 53 App. D.C. 351, 290 F. 326; Fulton Water Works Co. v. Bear Lithia Springs Co., 47 App. D.C. 437. Accepting the law as thus stated, we are co......
-
Bell Laboratories, Inc. v. Colonial Products, Inc.
...a trademark that the word "Sun-proof" was held to be sufficiently distinct from "Sunset" and "Sun Glo".... See Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co., 290 F. 323 (D.C.Cir.1923) ("Sun-Proof" versus "Sun Glo"); Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co., 290 F. 326 (D.C.Cir. 1923) ("Sun-Proof" versus......