Dennison Manufacturing Co. v. Denney Tag Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Dennison Manufacturing Co. v. Denney Tag Co., 48 App. D.C. 213 (D.C. Cir. 1918)
1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2380

Dennison Manufacturing Co. v. Denney Tag Co.

Opinion of the Court

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

These are appeals from decisions of the Patent Office tribunals sustaining appellee’s petition for the cancelation of the letters “D,” “T,” and “T C,” which appellant, the Dennison Manufacturing Company, theretofore had registered as trademarks for tags.

The Patent Office, after a review of the evidence, found that appellant had not used these letters as trademarks, but merely as grade marks; and, since it appeared that appellee, the Denney Tag Company, was using substantially the same marks in the same way, sustained the petition for cancelation. This action clearly was right; for words, letters, figures, or symbols not denoting origin or ownership, but merely indicating quality, are not capable of exclusive appropriation. Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. Co. 138 U. S. 537, 547, 34 L. ed. 997, 1003, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 396; Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U. S. 460, 463, 37 L. ed. 1144, 1146, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 151.

The interest of appellee was sufficient to form the basis for its petition to cancel. Tim & Co. v. Cluett, P. & Co. 42 App. D. C. 212.

The decisions are affirmed. Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
DENNISON MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. DENNEY TAG COMPANY
Status
Published
Syllabus
Trademarks ; Cakceeation. 1. Words, loiters, figures, or symbols not denoting origin or ownership, but merely indicating quality, are not registrable. 2. In a trademark cancelation proceeding, the interest of the petitioner is sufficient to form the basis of a petition to cancel the registered trademark of his adversary, where it appears that the marks, consisting of letters, were used by the registrant merely as grade marks, and that the petitioner had been using substantially the same marks in the same way. (Following Tim é Co. v. Cluett, P.