U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1926

Goodall Worsted Co. v. Palm Knitting Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided February 1, 1926 · Bland, Customs, Martin, Robb

10 F.2d 1013; 56 App. D.C. 148; 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2334 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

E. T. Eenwick, of Washington, D. C., for appellant., E. M. Evarts, of New York City, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Michigan Fruit Growers, Inc. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1930)
Bon Ami Co. v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1938)
Lever Bros. Co. v. Riodela Chemical Co. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1930)
Sharp & Dohme v. Parke, Davis & Co. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1930)
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)

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

ROBB, Associate Justice.

These are trade-mark opposition proceedings, in which the Patent Office dismissed the opposition, and held that appellee is entitled to register the words “Palm-Knit,” with the representation of a palm tree in a rectangle, as its ¡trade-mark. •

It is not disputed that the goods of the respective parties are of the same descriptive properties. Appellant sought to register the words “Palm Beach” as its trademark, and an opposition was filed by a prior user and registrant of the mark “Palm Island,” accompanied by the representation of a palm ■ tree. Appellant succeeded in convincing the Patent Office that the two marks .were not deceptively similar. It thus appears that appellant is not the originator of the use of the word “Palm” in a trade-mark, and we agree with the Assistant Commissioner that, “in view of these circumstances, the opposer in the ease at bar is not entitled to any such broad interpretation of its rights in connection with its mark as it would be if it were the first.to use the word ‘Palm/ or a representation of some part of a palm tree. Both these features, the word ‘Palm’ and the representation of a tree, were used prior to opposer’s adoption and use of its mark, and these are the only features which are common to the mark of the applicant and that of the opposer.”

As the Patent Office found, “Palm-Knit” differs from “Palm Beach” more than “Palm Beach” differs from “Palm Island.”

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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