Switzer v. J. N. Collins Co.
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Dietene Co. v. Dietrim Co. (United States District Court, Nebraska 1954)
- Coca-Cola Co. v. Carlisle Bottling Works (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 1929)
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
Appellant opposes the registration by appellee of the trade-mark “Honeymels” for use on candy. The opposer is the prior user of the mark “Buttermels” as a trade-mark for candy.
Unquestionably the words “butter” and “honey,” standing alone, are descriptive; but, when joined to the suffix “mels,” they are nothing more than suggestive, and arc subject to use as valid trade-marks. The suffix “mels,” meaning sweets, has had a use on candy in connection with the mark “caramels” long prior to the adoption and use of opposer^ mark. Indeed, the name “caramels” is a common one, extensively employed to refer to candy mixtures of a popular kind. Both parties have borrowed this suffix, and by combination with descriptive terms have constructed legitimate trade-marks. The suffix “mels” being common to both marks, the distinctive feature is between the words “honey” and “butter.” It was properly held by the Commissioner that no confusion could arise from the use of these two words in connection with the same quality of goods. With this holding we agree.
The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed,
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.