Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
SKOOKUM PACKERS' ASSOCIATION v. PACIFIC NORTHWEST CANNING CO., 1930 — 45 F.2d 915 · caselaw · US
IP
SKOOKUM PACKERS' ASSOCIATION v. PACIFIC NORTHWEST CANNING CO.
45 F.2d 915·United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals·1930
• Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
SKOOKUM PACKERS’ ASSOCIATION v. PACIFIC NORTHWEST CANNING CO.
Patent Appeal No. 2523.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Dec. 19, 1930.
Eugene E. Stevens, of Washington, D. C. (Edward D. Jones, of Chicago, 111., and Albert L. Jacobs, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
George C. Shoemaker and Harry F. Riley, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
• Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.
[MAJORITY — LENROOT, Associate Judge.]
LENROOT, Associate Judge.
This is an appeal in a trade-mark opposition proceeding. The Commissioner of Patents held that appellant was estopped to oppose the registration sought by appellee, and reversed the decision of the Examiner of Trade-Mark Interferences, which sustained the notice of opposition and adjudged that appellee was not entitled to the registration sought by its application. From this decision of the Commissioner appellant takes this appeal.
The issues involved herein are substantially the same as those involved in the ease between the same parties, 45 F.(2d) 912, Patent Appeal No. 2522, decided this day (Patents), and by stipulation of the parties the record in said last-named case became the record in the case at bar.
For the reasons given in our decision in said Patent Appeal No. 2522, the decision of the Commissioner of Patents is reversed.
Reversed.