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.
OSTERMOOR & CO., Inc., v. JOHN A. SCHWARZ, Inc., 1926 — 12 F.2d 847 · caselaw · US
IP
OSTERMOOR & CO., Inc., v. JOHN A. SCHWARZ, Inc.
12 F.2d 847·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1926
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
OSTERMOOR & CO., Inc., v. JOHN A. SCHWARZ, Inc.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 20, 1926.
Decided May 3, 1926.)
No. 1802.
Trade-marks and trade-names and unfair competition @=343.
Picture of mattress held publici juris, as affecting applicant’s right to incorporate it in composite trade-mark.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
Proceeding by John A. Schwarz, Inc., for registration of trade-mark, opposed by Ostermoor & Co., Inc. Prom a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, dismissing its opposition, opposer appeals.
Affirmed.
C. C. Cousins, of New York City, and H. P. Riley, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
C. E. Riordon, of Washington, D. C., and Morris Kirschstein, of New York City, for appellee.
Before MARTIN, CMef Justice, and ROBB and YAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appeal from concurrent decisions of the tribunals of the Patent Office in a trade-mark opposition proceeding, dismissing the opposition.
We agree with the Patent Office that the picture of a mattress, involved in the marks upon which the opposition is based and in applicant’s mark, is publici juris, and therefore may be incorporated in applicant’s composite mark. See Ostermoor & Co. v. Rose Spring & Mattress Co., 55 App. D. C. 307, 5 F.(2d) 268.
The decision is affirmed.