Application of Stephens-Adamson Mfg. Co.
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Triangle Publications v. Hanson (District Court, E.D. Missouri 1946)
- Wornova Mfg. Co. v. McCawley & Co. (2d Cir. 1926)
- William Waltke & Co. v. Geo. H. Schafer & Co. (D.C. Cir. 1920)
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
“We incline to the opinion that they are rather suggestive than descriptive, and that they may be properly claimed as a trade-mark.”
It may be said that a mark to be suggestive must contain some element of descriptiveness; but if this be true, it seems from the foregoing decisions that this does not render it obnoxious to the law.. The word “Unit” is not descriptive, therefore, because it may suggest to the mind that the carrier, consisting of three rollers, moves as one. Standing alone, it does not necessarily indicate “a plurality of similars.” It refers as well to a single person or thing. Standard Dictionary, 1913. In electricity we speak of a unit current — one in which a unit quantity of electricity flows in unit time.
We think, therefore, that the applicant company, upon eliminating the word “Carrier,” is entitled to have the word “Unit” registered as a trade-mark for the goods mentioned in its application.
The decision of the Commissioner is reversed.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.