PLOUGH CHEMICAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Eva NIEMAN, Appellee

4 F.2d 1013·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1925

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

PLOUGH CHEMICAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Eva NIEMAN, Appellee. (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia. Submitted March 11, 1925. Decided April 6, 1925.) Patent Appeal No. 1732. B. W. Bradford, of Washington, D. C., for appellant. J. N. Ramsey, of Cincinnati, Ohio, 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 Patent Office tribunals in a trade-mark interference proceeding involving the mark “Black and White,” for use on almanacs and birthday and dream books. Appellant adopted this mark in 1919. The Patent Office has found, and in that finding we concur, that long prior to that date appellee’s predecessor adopted and used the same mark, and that in 1912 appellee succeeded to the business and good will of her predecessor. The question , is one purely of fact, and, as already intimated, a review of the evidence has convinced us of the correctness of the conclusion reached. The decision therefore is affirmed. Affirmed.