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.
HARLEM CARD & PAPER CO., Inc., v. TAYLOR-LOGAN CO., PAPER-MAKERS, 1926 — 10 F.2d 1014 · caselaw · US
Administrative
HARLEM CARD & PAPER CO., Inc., v. TAYLOR-LOGAN CO., PAPER-MAKERS
10 F.2d 1014·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1926
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and BLAND, 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
HARLEM CARD & PAPER CO., Inc., v. TAYLOR-LOGAN CO., PAPER-MAKERS.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 14, 1926.
Decided February 1, 1926.)
No. 1808.
Trade-marks and trade-names and unfair competition <§=343.
Registrátion of mark “Public Service Bond” precluded another’s registration of “Public Safety Bond” for use on goods of same descriptive properties.
Appeal from Commissioner of Patents.
Proceeding for registration of trade-mark by the Harlem Card & Paper Company, Inc., opposed by the Taylor-Logan Company, Papermakers. Prom a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, sustaining opposition, applicant appeals.
Affirmed.
J. E. Hutchinson, Jr., of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
James Atkins, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and BLAND, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
[MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.]
ROBB, Associate Justice.
This is a trade-mark opposition proceeding, sustaining appellee’s opposition to the registration by the appellant of the trade-mark “Public Safety Bond”; no claim being made to the exclusive use of the word “Bond,” “apart from the mark.”
The opposer’s mark is “Public Service Bond,” and the goods of the two parties are of the same descriptive properties. That confusion would be likely to result from concurrent use of the two marks is too obvious to require discussion. The decision therefore is affirmed.
Affirmed.