3281 3282 3450 3453 For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 1927, § 9409 et seq.) ).-Moss v. Gilchrist-Ford- in interstate commerce.-Gray v. Armand Co., ney Co., 24 F. (2d) ́931. TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES I. MARKS AND NAMES SUBJECTS OF (App.D.C.) Office of trade-mark is to distinctly point out origin or ownership of article.-Gray v. Armand Co., 24 F. (2d) 878. 3(42) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Under the facts shown, the name "Kelp Ore," held not subject to appropriation as trade-mark.-Brooten v. Oregon Kelp Ore Products Co., 24 F. (2d) 496. 3(42) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) "No-D-Ka," as applied to a tooth paste, held descriptive, and not subject to appropriation as trade-mark.-No-DKa Dentifrice Co. v. S. S. Kresge Co., 24 F. (2d) 726. 24 F. (2d) 878. 43 (App.D.C.) Manufacturer of stoves and ranges under trade-mark "Victor," acquiescing in another using mark for furnaces, cannot register mark for furnaces.-Victor Stove Co. v. Hall-Neal Furnace Co., 24 F. (2d) 893, followed in 24 F. (2d) 894. 43 (App.D.C.) To be entitled to registration, mark must be used on article of commerce, and used in commerce.-In re Gregg & Son, 24 F. (2d) 898. Trade-mark must possess identifying characteristics of article to which it is affixed, and indicate origin or ownership.-Id. Service corporation, repairing, cleaning, renovating, and dyeing fabrics and furs, held not entitled to registration of mark attached to goods when returned to owners.-Id. 43 (App.D.C.) Registration of words "Wheat-Nut" as name for cereal breakfast foods refused for confusing similarity to "Grape-Nuts."-Postum Cereal Co. v. Farmers' Mill & Elevator Ass'n, 24 F. (2d) 901. Doubt as to confusing similarity between marks will be resolved against one last in field. -Id. 44 (App.D.C.) Opposer to registration of trade-mark need not establish damages in order to succeed.-Lever Bros. Co. v. Armour & Co., 24 F.(2d) 285. 452 (App.D.C.) "Sammy" held so similar to "Uncle Sam," applied to competitor's work shirts, as to require cancellation of registration.-Salant & Salant v. Feldman & Weinman, 24 F. (2d) 276. Reasonable doubt as to likely confusion between trade-marks should be resolved in favor of prior user, in cancellation proceeding.-Id. 45/2 (App.D.C.) Registration of "CHOCO" as trade-mark for soft drinks will be canceled as confusingly similar to "Choco-Sip."-F. Hoffman & Sons v. H. B. Hunter Co., 24 F. (2d) 899. IV. INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION. (A) What Constitutes Infringement. 3 (42) (App.D.C.) Words "Supercream" and "Supercreamed," applied to hard soaps, held fanciful and arbitrary.-Lever Bros. Co. v. Ar-53 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) One using less than mour & Co., 24 F.(2d) 285. II. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CON- 26 (App.D.C.) Trader, to acquire trademark, must adopt mark open to appropriation, apply it physically to vendible commodity, and put marked commodity on market.-In re Gregg & Son, 24 F. (2d) 898. 28 (App.D.C.) Use of picture of girl in advertising cosmetics, without affixing mark to goods actually sold, held not "trade-mark use" (Trade-Mark Act Feb. 20, 1905, § 29 [15 USCA § 108]).-Gray v. Armand Co., 24 F. (2d) 878. 32 (App.D.C.) Discontinuance of use of trade-mark in domestic commerce held not to show intent to abandon such mark.-Schock Independent Oil Co. v. Sinclair Refining Co., 24 F. (2d) 286. 34 (App.D.C.) Attempted sale of trademark, unaccompanied by any business, held to confer no rights on buyer.-Sexton Mfg. Co. v. Chesterfield Shirt Co., 24 F. (2d) 288. III. REGISTRATION, REGULATION, AND OFFENSES. whole trade-mark does not infringe, unless part taken identifies owner's product, without the rest.-Parfumerie Roger & Gallet v. M. C. M. Co., 24 F. (2d) 698. 59(5) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Trade-marks "Bouquet des Amours" and "Fleurs d'Amours" held not infringed by use of "Charme d'Amour" or of "Caresse d'Amour."-Parfumerie Roger & Gallet v. M. C. M. Co., 24 F. (2d) 698. 59(5) (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Seller of "Big-5 Pie" held not to have infringed trade-mark "Eskimo Pie," or "Pie."-Eskimo Pie Corporation v. Levous, 24 F. (2d) 599. 59(5) (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Owner of trade-mark "Listerine" could not be deprived of its right to sell product in particular form and combination by another's sale of product containing listerine under similar name.-Lambert Pharmacal Co. v. Listerated Co., 24 F. (2d) 122. Sale under name "Listerated" of hair tonic containing similar ingredients to listerine and small amount of listerine held infringement of trade-mark "Listerine."—Id. (B) What Competition Unlawful. 43 (App.D.C.) User of trade-mark "Super-68(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Person has privicream" for shaving soaps may prevent registration of name "Supercreamed" for use on soap without restriction.-Lever Bros. Co. v. Armour & Co., 24 F. (2d) 285. 43 (App.D.C.) Similarity between words "Sico" and "Sinco," as trade-marks for petroleum products, held to justify refusal of registration to former.-Schock Independent Oil Co. v. Sinclair Refining Co., 24 F.(2d) 286. 43 (App.D.C.) To be registered, trademark must be applied to vendible goods sold lege of dealing with third parties and right that others shall not interfere therewith.-Green v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 24 F. (2d) 378. Private trader may exercise own pleasure as to parties he deals with.-Id. 68(1) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Propaganda through press and by letters to competitor's customers, misrepresenting, to competitor's damage, scope of patent infringement decisions, held actionable unfair competition.-Alliance Securities Co. v. De Vilbiss Co., 24 F.(2d) 530. |