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.
LOOSE-WILES BISCUIT CO. v. JOHNSON EDUCATOR FOOD CO., 1925 — 10 F.2d 656 · caselaw · US
IP
LOOSE-WILES BISCUIT CO. v. JOHNSON EDUCATOR FOOD CO.
10 F.2d 656·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1925
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
LOOSE-WILES BISCUIT CO. v. JOHNSON EDUCATOR FOOD CO.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia,
submitted November 13, 1925.
Decided December 7, 1925.
Motion for Rehearing Denied December 19, 1925.)
No. 1773.
Trade-marks and trade-names and unfair competition <@=»43 — “Cookieland” held not descriptive, within meaning of Trade-mark Act.
“Cookieland” held not descriptive, within meaning of Trade-mark Act (Comp. St. 9485 et seq.), so as to prevent its registration as trade-mark for cookies and biscuits.
Appeal from Commissioner of Patents.
Proceeding by the Johnson Educator Pood Company for registration of trademark, opposed by the Loose-Wiles Biscuit Company. Prom a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, granting registration, opposer appeals.
Affirmed.
I. U. Townsend, Jr., of Boston, Mass., A. D. Adams, of Washington, D. C., and P. L. Emery, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.
Henry Cal ver, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
[MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.]
ROBB, Associate Justice.
Appeal from concurrent decisions of the Patent Office dismissing appellant’s opposition to the registration by appellee of the word “Cookieland” as a trade-mark for cookies, crackers, cakes, and biscuits.
Appellant does not use this mark as a trade-mark, but bases its opposition upon the contention that the word is descriptive. We agree with the Patent_Office that “Cookie-land” is not descriptive, within the meaning of the Trade-mark Act (33 Stat. 724 [Comp. St. § 9485 et seq.]), and hence that it is registrable to the appellee. Decision affirmed.
Affirmed.