IP
IN RE SEAMLESS RUBBER COMPANY
34 App. D.C. 357·Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia·1910·DC
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
IN RE SEAMLESS RUBBER COMPANY.
Tbademarks.
This case is governed by the decision in the court in Re Central Consumers Co. 32 App. D. C. 523.
No. 612.
Patent Appeals.
Submitted January 14, 1910.
Decided January 17, 1910.
Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents refusing to register a trademark.
Affirmed.
Mr. Walter H. Pumphrey and Mr. Frank 8. Appleman for the appellant.
Mr. Robert F. Whitehead for the Commissioner of Patents.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Van Orsdel]
Mr. Justice Van Orsdel
delivered the opinion of the Court:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents refusing registration of the word “Kantleek” as a trademark for atomizers, fountain syringes, face bags, ice bags, and water bottles. Upon the authority of Re Central Consumers Co. 32 App. D. C. 523, and Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co. v. Standard Paint Co. 90 C. C. A. 195, 163 Fed. 977, tbe decision of tbe Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, and tbe clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as by law required. Affirmed.