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.
2 F.2d 1013·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1924
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
BERNET, CRAFT & KAUFFMAN MILLING CO., Appellant, v. PUSSY WILLOW COMPANY, Inc., Appellee.
(Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Submitted November 14, 1924.
Decided December 1, 1924.)
No. 1685.
Paul Bakewell, of St. Louis, Mo., and H. A. Coombs, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
H. Y. Briesen and Louis Alexander, both of New York City, for appellee.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in a trade-mark opposition, refusing registration to appellant company of a trade-mark for selD rising wheat flour. The mark consists of the words “Pussy Willow,” accompanied by soma sprays of pussy willow. The opposition is based entirely upon the use of opposer’s corporate name, the registration of which is prohibited by section 5 of the Trade-Mark Act of 1905. The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed on the authority of Asbestone Co. v. Philip Carey Mfg. Co., 41 App. D. C. 507.