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.
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO. v. STOCKTON PAINT CO., 1928 ā 26 F.2d 1014 Ā· caselaw Ā· US
IP
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO. v. STOCKTON PAINT CO.
26 F.2d 1014Ā·United States Court of Appeals for the District of ColumbiaĀ·1928
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
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
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO. v. STOCKTON PAINT CO.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted May 15, 1928.
Decided June 4, 1928.
No. 2064.
Trade-marks and trade-names and unfair competition <§=Ā»43 ā 'Colored horizontal bands, with words āOLD MISSION,ā held sufficiently different from bands and pictorial representation of globe as to permit concurrent use.
Use of colored horizontal bands, with words āOLD MISSIONā prominently shown in upper band, with pictorial representation of an old mission in approximately center of mark, held sufficiently different from mark consisting of plurality of varicolored horizontal bands and pictorial representation of a globe, so that there was no likelihood of confusion in concurrent use of two marks.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
Opposition by the Sherwin-Williams Company to the registration by the Stockton Paint Company of a trade-mark. Prom a decision dismissing the opposition, the objector appeals.
Affirmed.
T. H. Fay, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
Charles E. Riordon and C. Russell Riordon, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY ā ROBB, Associate Justice.]
ROBB, Associate Justice.
This is an ap- , peal from a Patent Office decision dismissing appellantās opposition to the registration by appellee, as a trade-mark for paints, of colored horizontal bands, with the words āOLD MISSIONā prominently shown in the upper band, and an equally prominent pictorial representation of an old mission in approximately the center of the mark.
Appellantās mark comprises a plurality of varicolored horizontal bands, and a pictorial representation of a globe, and a paint container from which paint is being poured upon the globe, the paint container bearing the initials āSWPā (Sherwin-Williams Paint), and on the globe are the words āCover the Earth.ā
We agree with the Patent Office that the dominant characteristics of appellantās mark are the representation of the globe and its accessories, while the dominant characteristics of appelleeās mark are the words āOLD MISSIONā and the pictorial representation of an old mission, and hence that there is no> likelihood of confusion in the concurrent use of the two marks.
The decision is affirmed.
Affirmed.