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.
BLEK CO., Manufacturers, v. MISHAWAKA RUBBER & WOOLEN MFG. CO., 1927 — 18 F.2d 191 · caselaw · US
IP
BLEK CO., Manufacturers, v. MISHAWAKA RUBBER & WOOLEN MFG. CO.
18 F.2d 191·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1927
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
BLEK CO., Manufacturers, v. MISHAWAKA RUBBER & WOOLEN MFG. CO.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 14, 1927.
Decided March 7, 1927.)
No. 1911.
Trade-marks and trade-names and unfair competition <®=43 — Use of trade-mark on boots, overshoes, and socks held to preclude registration of deceptively similar mark for use on garters.
Use of trade-mark on rubber boots, overshoes, woolen boots, and socks held to preclude registration of deceptively similar trade-mark for usé on men’s, boy’s, children’s and women’s garters.
Appeal from Decision of Commissioner of Patents.
Proceeding for registration of trade-mark by the Blek Company, Manufacturers, opposed by the Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Manufacturing Company. Prom a decision sustaining the opposition, applicant appeals.
Affirmed.
Ralph Kalish, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
E. W; Shepard, of Washington, D. C., and E. M. Giles, of Chicago, Ill., 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 tribunals of the Patent Office, in a trade-mark interference proceeding, refusing registration to the appellant.
Long prior to the adoption by appellant of the mark consisting of the words “Red Dot,” with a circular spot between, for use on men’s, boy’s, children’s, and women’s garters, appellee had widely used a similar mark on rubber boots, overshoes, woolen boots, and socks. The Patent Office found, and we concur in the finding, that the use of deceptively similar marks on socks and garters would be likely to cause confusion in trade and mislead purchasers. Wolf & Sons v. Lord & Taylor, 41 App. D. C. 514.
The decision is affirmed.
Affirmed.