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.
In re J. L. HUDSON CO., 1925 — 6 F.2d 720 · caselaw · US
IP
In re J. L. HUDSON CO.
6 F.2d 720·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1925
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
In re J. L. HUDSON CO.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted May 13, 1925.
Decided June 1, 1925.)
No. 1748.
Trade-marks and trade-names and unfair competition <@=343 — Registration of word “Luzona” held'not within inhibition against registration of descriptive or geographical term.
“Luzona,” as trade-mark for women’s underwear, helé not within inhibition against registration of descriptive or geographical terms, on ground that “Luzon” is name of island in Philippine group, and therefore open to common use.
Appeal from Commissioner of Patents.
Application by the J. L. Hudson Company for registration of a trade-mark. From a decision of the Patent Office, denying registration, applicant appeals.
Reversed.
James Atkins, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.]
ROBB, Associate Justice.
Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing registration to the word “Luzona,” as a trademark for women’s underwear; the ground of the decision being that the word is merely geographical.
The object of the inhibition against the registration of a descriptive or geographical term is to prevent one dealer from securing a monopoly of a term which, with equal propriety, may be used by other dealers in vending like goods. Thus “Luzon,” being the name of an island in the Philippine group, is open to common use. But appellant is not seeking registration of that word. “Luzona” is no more than suggestive of “Luzon,” and its registration would prevent no one from using the geographical term.
The ease cited by the Patent Office, namely, Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Co., 220 U. S. 446, 31 S. Ct. 456, 55 L. Ed. 536, is not apposite. The word there involved was “Rubberoid,” which was clearly descriptive of the character or quality of the roofing product to which it was applied. Here the adopted word is' not Luzon misspelled, but a coined and different word, and hence registrable.
The decision is reversed.
Reversed.