In re Maclin-Zimmer-McGill Tobacco Co.
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Lightnin Chemical Co. v. Royal Home Products, Inc. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1952)
- In re Riverbank Canning Co. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1938)
- Shunk Manufacturing Company v. Tarrant Manufacturing Company (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1963)
- Pink Lady Corporation v. L. N. Renault & Sons, Inc. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1959)
- McKesson & Robbins, Inc. v. Charles H. Phillips Chemical Co. (2d Cir. 1931)
- Pizzeria Uno Corporation v. James W. Temple, Jr., D/B/A Taco Uno (4th Cir. 1984)
- Aktiengesellschaft für Feinmechanik vormals Jetter & Scheerer v. Kny-Scheerer Corp. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1935)
- In re Northern Paper Mills (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1933)
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
Appeal from a Patent Office decision refusing registration to the words “El Gallo,” as a trade-mark for tobacco.
“El Gallo” is the Spanish for “The Rooster,” and it appears that “Our Rooster” and a picture of a rooster have been registered as a trade-mark for tobacco by another concern. In Nestle & A. S. C. Milk Co. v. Walter Baker & Co., 37 App. D. C. 148, 152, we ruled that “Milkmaid” and a pictorial representation of a milkmaid meant the same to the public, and that the “right to employ one necessarily includes the right to employ both.” It matters not that appellant has employed the Spanish language, instead of English. In re Bradford Dyeing Ass’n, 46 App. D. C. 512.
The decision was right, and is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.