REO MOTOR CAR CO. v. TRAFFIC MOTOR TRUCK CORPORATION

REO MOTOR CAR CO. v. TRAFFIC MOTOR TRUCK CORPORATION. (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia. Submitted January 13, 1925. Decided March 2, 1925.) No. 1687. Trade-marks and trade-names and unfair competition <®=>45 — Registration of descriptive trade-mark “Speed Wagon” held not to preclude another’s registration of mark “Speed-boy.” Registration of descriptive trade-mark “Speed Wagon” for motor trucks, under Act March 19, 1920 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 9516a et seq.), registration having been refused under Act Feb. 20, 1905 (Comp. St. § ‘9485 et seq.), held not to preclude another’s use and registration of mark “Speedboy.” Appeal from Commissioner of Patents. Application by the Traffic Motor Truck Corporation for registration of trade-mark, opposed by the Reo Motor Car Company. From a decree dismissing opposition, opposer appeals. Affirmed. O. W. Jeffery, of New York City, for appellant. H. G. Cook, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellee. Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices. [MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.] ROBB, Associate Justice. Appeal from concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals in a trade-mark opposition proceeding, dismissing appellant’s opposition to the registration by appellee of “Speedboy” as a trade-mark on motor trucks. Appellant registered the mark “Speed Wagon” under the Act of March 19,1920 (41 Stat. 533 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 9516a et seq.]); registration having been refused under the Act of February 20, 1905 (33 Stat. 724 [Comp. St. § 9485 et seq.]), on the ground that the mark was descriptive. We agree with the Patent Office that, having adopted a descriptivo mark, appellant has no right to exclude another from the use of the descriptive features of that mark, if used in such a way as to distinguish the two marks. Appellee has met this test, for the only similarity between the two marks is in the use of the descriptive word “Speed.” See Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. TheopoldReid Co., 50 App. D. C. 200, 269 F. 716; Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co., 53 App. D. C. 348, 290 F. 323;, American Tobacco Co. v. Globe Tobacco Co. (C. C.) 193 F. 1015; Feil Co. v. J. E. Robbins Co., 220 F. 650, 136 C. A. 258. The decision is affirmed. Affirmed.