U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1919

In re Alvah Bushnell Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided December 1, 1919 · Orsdfd

261 F. 1013; 49 App. D.C. 133; 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1887

Counsel

F. T. Fenwick, I,. L. Morrill, and C. R. Allen, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant., T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Dietene Co. v. Dietrim Co. (United States District Court, Nebraska 1954)
Clarke v. K-MART (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1979)
Neely v. Boland Manufacturing Co. (D. Minn. 1958)
California Cyanide Co. v. American Cyanamid Co. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1930)
Feil v. American Serum Co. (District Court, N.D. Iowa 1925)
In re B. F. Goodrich Co. (D.C. Cir. 1923)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

VAN ORSDFD, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents refusing registration of the word symbol “Safe T Seal” as a trade-mark for envelopes, wallets, letter files, jackets, etc.

[ 1 ] Counsel for the Commissioner discloses the existence of patent to D’Agostina, dated February 8, 1916, for safety envelopes, and also patent to Halloran, dated July 25, 1905, which is described as relating “to a safety seal for envelopes.” It must be assumed that the goods of the respective patentees are known to the trade as “safety envelopes,” or “safety seal envelopes.” This designation, having been established, by virtue of the patents, even if arbitrary, would not be available as a trade-mark for either of the patentees for goods of the same class as those patented. It follows that, if by their use the marks could not be registered as trade-marks by the persons first applying them to the patented articles, a stranger could not adopt either of them as a trade-mark for the same class of goods.

[2] Treating the mark independently, the test here is the impression which it would make upon the public. It is clear that the trade would identify the goods bearing the mark either as safety seal envelopes or safe seal envelopes. In either case the mark is descriptive of the goods, and comes within the prohibition of section 5 of the Trade-Mark Act of February 20, 1905 (33 Stat. 725, c. 592 [Comp. St. § 9490]).

*1014The decision of "the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, and the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as required by law. Affirmed,

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.