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.
Annie M. MALONE, Doing Business under the Style and Name of Poro College, Appellant, v. Clarence C. HAY, Appellee, 1926 — 10 F.2d 906 · caselaw · US
IP
Annie M. MALONE, Doing Business under the Style and Name of Poro College, Appellant, v. Clarence C. HAY, Appellee
10 F.2d 906·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1926
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
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
Annie M. MALONE, Doing Business under the Style and Name of Poro College, Appellant, v. Clarence C. HAY, Appellee.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted November 16, 1925.
Decided January 4, 1926.)
No. 1779.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
See, also, --- App. D. C. ---, 10 F.(2d) 905.
J. D, Rippey and L. C. Kingsland, both of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
J. E. Byrne, L. F. Randolph, and J. W. Milburn, all of Washington, D. C., and C. M. Bryan, of Memphis, Tenn., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
[MAJORITY — MARTIN, Chief Justice.]
MARTIN, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, overruling an opposition filed by the appellant in a trade-mark registration proceeding.
The appellee, Clarence Hay, applied for the registration of a trade-mark consisting of the word “Hay-Po” for use on shampoo soap. The appellant, Annie M. Malone, doing business under the name of Poro College, filed an opposition to the application because of the alleged similarity of “Hay-Po” "with her registered trade-mark “Poro,” used upon preparations for the treatment of the hair and hair dressings. The opposer claimed that the issue thus raised by the opposition had been passed upon in similar proceedings between the same parties, and that both the Patent Office and this court had entered decisions against the applicant upon said issues, which decisions were still in full force and effect. The opposer accordingly contended that the applicant was barred by the rule of res judicata from again contesting said opposition.
We sustain this claim of the appellant, and refer to our opinion in Malone v. Hay No. 1778, 10 F.(2d) 905, handed down concurrently herewith, for the grounds of this decision.
The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is accordingly reversed.