U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1921

Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. Theopold-Reid Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided January 3, 1921 · Orsdel

269 F. 716; 50 App. D.C. 200; 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 2339

Counsel

A. C. Paul, of Minneapolis, Minn., and W. G. Henderson, of Washington, D. C., for appellant., James F. Williamson, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Charles J. O’Neill, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Pure Oil Co. v. Pep Boys—Manny, Moe & Jack (D.C. Cir. 1942)
Ansco Photoproducts, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (D.C. Cir. 1927)
Reo Motor Car Co. v. Traffic Motor Truck Corp. (D.C. Cir. 1925)

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 ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

The Sheffield-King Milling Company appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents holding the Theopold-Reid Company entitled to register a trade-mark for wheat .flour consisting of the portrait of a man with the words “Jean Baptiste Faribault” written beneath the picture, the picture and words being located in a circular field with a representation of stalks of grain on either side of the portrait.

The opposition is based upon the previous use by the opposer of the mark “Faribault Fancy” on wheat flour. Both parties are located at Faribault, Minn.

[1] Appellant contends that applicant’s right to registration is res *717judicata because of a judgment rendered in a prior opposition involving the same parties. The mark of the earlier opposition consisted simply of the portrait of a man and the word “Faribault” written in large type thereunder. Comparing the marks, we agree with the Commissioner that the mark in the second opposition is so different from the mark of the first opposition that judgment against applicant in the first could not, under any circumstances, work estoppel in the second.

[2] Coming to the merits of the case, the only feature common to the two marks which might lead to confusion is the word “Faribault”; but this is geographical, and either party, or any other person, has a right to use it. Nor will the registration of applicant’s mark containing the word prevent any other manufacturer in Faribault from using it. Opposer, therefore, is not in position to establish injury from the registration of applicant’s mark.

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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