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.
HOLLAND FOOD CORPORATION, Appellant, v. H-O CEREAL COMPANY, Inc., Appellee, 1926 — 11 F.2d 576 · caselaw · US
Corporations
HOLLAND FOOD CORPORATION, Appellant, v. H-O CEREAL COMPANY, Inc., Appellee
11 F.2d 576·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·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
HOLLAND FOOD CORPORATION, Appellant, v. H-O CEREAL COMPANY, Inc., Appellee.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 13, 1926.
Decided March 1, 1926.)
No. 1805.
Appeal from tbe Commissioner of Patents.
J. W. Crandall, of New York City, for appellant.
E. H. Parry, of Washington, D. C. (Edmund H. Parry, of Washington, D. C., and H. Barton Parry, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and BLAND, Judge of tbe United States Court of Customs Appeals.
[MAJORITY — MARTIN, Chief Justice.]
MARTIN, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal from a decision of tbe Commissioner of Patents, affirming a decision, of tbe Examiner of Interferences, sustaining tbe opposition of tbe appellee to tbe application of tbe appellant for registration of tbe mark “Hofood” for various specified food products.
This appeal was beard and considered together with that of tbe same parties in patent appeal No. 1804, 11 E.(2d) 575, - App. D. C. -, this day decided by this court. Consistently with tbe decision in that case, we affirm tbe decision of tbe Commissioner of Patents in this case.