United States Compression Inner Tube Co. v. Climax Rubber Co.
| Citation | 290 F. 345 |
| Decision Date | 04 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | 1579. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES COMPRESSION INNER TUBE CO. v. CLIMAX RUBBER CO. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Submitted March 14, 1923.
Arthur E. Wallace, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
D. P Wolhaupter, of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before SMYTH, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate justices.
This appeal is from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents sustaining a petition for cancellation of a trade-mark registered by appellant, United States Compression Inner Tube Company, under the Act of Congress of March 19, 1920, 41 Stat. 533.
We are confronted with a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that appeal does not lie to this court from the decision of the Commissioner in cases arising under the 1920 act. The purpose of the act, as stated in the title, is:
'To give effect to certain provisions of the convention for the protection of trade-marks and commercial names, made and signed in the city of Buenos Ayres, in the Argentine Republic, August 20, 1910, and for other purposes.'
Previous to the enactment of this law, descriptive geographical and personal names were not subject to registration under the Trade-Mark Act of February 20, 1905 (33 Stat. 724), unless they had been used exclusively by the applicant for more than ten years prior to that date.
Paragraph (a) of section 1 of the 1920 act requires the Commissioner of Patents to keep a register of trade-marks and commercial names, sent to him by the international bureaus, which are within the protection of the Buenos Ayres agreement; and paragraph (b) provides among other things, as follows:
'All other marks not registerable under the Act of February 20, 1905, as amended, except those specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 5 of that act, but which had been in bona fide use for not less than one year in interstate or foreign commerce, or commerce with the Indian tribes by the proprietor thereof, upon or in connection with any goods of such proprietor,' are entitled to registration.
Appellant, by its application for registration under subsection (b), supra, concedes that the mark in issue is descriptive, and therefore not subject to registration under the Trade-Mark Act of 1905. This brings us to the proposition presented by the motion to dismiss, whether or not appeal lies to this court from the action of the Commissioner directing the cancellation of a mark registered under the 1920 act. The right of appeal to this court from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in trade-mark cases is accorded by section 9 of the Trade-Mark Act of 1905 (Comp. St. Sec. 9494), and, unless appellant can establish its right to appeal under the express provisions of that act, the motion to dismiss must be sustained.
Section 6 of the 1920 act, among other things, provides:
'That the provisions of sections 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 28 () of the act approved February 20, 1905,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Postum Cereal Co v. California Fig Nut Co
...of Patents. This holding was in accordance with a previous decision of the same court in United States Compression Inner Tube Company v. Climax Rubber Company, 53 App. D. C. 370, 290 F. 345. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. The present appeal to this court was allowed by the Court of T......
-
Macleay Duff, Ltd. v. Frankfort Distilleries
...Co., 54 App.D.C. 285, 297 F. 544, appeal dismissed, 272 U. S. 693, 47 S.Ct. 284, 71 L.Ed. 478, and United States Compression Inner Tube Co. v. Climax Rubber Co., 53 App.D.C. 370, 290 F. 345. The Postum Cereal case, supra, is based upon what appears to us to be the sound reasoning in the Com......
-
In re Railley Corporation, Patent Appeal No. 4524.
...491), or his decision relating to a registration under the Trade-Mark Act of March 19, 1920 (United States Compression Inner Tube Co. v. Climax Rubber Co., 53 App.D.C. 370, 290 F. 345), are not appealable decisions. This court in Re Mavrogenis, 57 F.2d 361, 364, 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1063, ......
-
In re Cohen, Goldman & Co.
...lies to this court from a refusal by the commissioner to register a mark under the act of 1920. United States Compression Inner Tube Co. v. Climax Rubber Co., 53 App.D.C. 370, 290 F. 345, 1923 C. D. We, therefore, treat the appeal before us as being from the refusal of registration under th......