U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1927

Blek Co. v. Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Mfg. Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 7, 1927 · Martin, Orsdel, Robb

18 F.2d 191; 57 App. D.C. 149; 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 1921 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Ralph Kalish, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant., E. W; Shepard, of Washington, D. C., and E. M. Giles, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Hyde Park Clothes, Inc. v. Hyde Park Fashions, Inc. (2d Cir. 1953)
California Packing Corporation v. Tillman & Bendel (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1930)
Sun-Maid Raisin Growers of California v. American Grocer Co. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1930)

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.

Appeal from concurrent decisions of the tribunals of the Patent Office, in a trade-mark interference proceeding, refusing registration to the appellant.

Long prior to the adoption by appellant of the mark consisting of the words “Red Dot,” with a circular spot between, for use on men’s, boy’s, children’s, and women’s garters, appellee had widely used a similar mark on rubber boots, overshoes, woolen boots, and socks. The Patent Office found, and we concur in the finding, that the use of deceptively similar marks on socks and garters would be likely to cause confusion in trade and mislead purchasers. Wolf & Sons v. Lord & Taylor, 41 App. D. C. 514.

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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