Reo Motor Car Co. v. Traffic Motor Truck Corp.
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Perfection Co. v. Coe (District Court, District of Columbia 1945)
- Pure Oil Co. v. Pep Boys—Manny, Moe & Jack (D.C. Cir. 1942)
- American Personnel, Inc. v. Management Recruiters of Richmond, Inc. (Richmond City Circuit Court 1970)
- Winget Kickernick Co. v. La Mode Garment Co. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1930)
- Ansco Photoproducts, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (D.C. Cir. 1927)
- In re Reo Motor Car Co. (D.C. Cir. 1926)
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 concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals in a trade-mark opposition proceeding, dismissing appellant’s opposition to the registration by appellee of “Speedboy” as a trade-mark on motor trucks. Appellant registered the mark “Speed Wagon” under the Act of March 19,1920 (41 Stat. 533 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 9516a et seq.]); registration having been refused under the Act of February 20, 1905 (33 Stat. 724 [Comp. St. § 9485 et seq.]), on the ground that the mark was descriptive.
We agree with the Patent Office that, having adopted a descriptivo mark, appellant has no right to exclude another from the use of the descriptive features of that mark, if used in such a way as to distinguish the two marks. Appellee has met this test, for the only similarity between the two marks is in the use of the descriptive word “Speed.” See Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. TheopoldReid Co., 50 App. D. C. 200, 269 F. 716; Patton Paint Co. v. Sunset Paint Co., 53 App. D. C. 348, 290 F. 323;, American Tobacco Co. v. Globe Tobacco Co. (C. C.) 193 F. 1015; Feil Co. v. J. E. Robbins Co., 220 F. 650, 136 C. A. 258.
The decision is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.