U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1956

S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Gold Seal Company

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 8, 1956 · Prettyman, Miller, Washington

230 F.2d 832; 97 U.S. App. D.C. 282; 100 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 400; 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3327 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Messrs. Francis C. Browne and William E. Schuyler, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Floyd E. Thompson, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, Chicago, 111., pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Messrs. Edward B. Beale, Washington, D. C., and Maurice M. Moore, Minneapolis, Minn., were on the brief, for appellee Gold Seal Co., Messrs. Clarence W. Moore, Sol., U. S. Patent Office, and E. L. Reynolds, Sol., U. S. Patent Office, at the time record was filed, entered appearances for appellees Sinclair Weeks, Secretary of Commerce, and Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents.

Cases that cite this one

29 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.

Jo Ann Colligan v. Activities Club Of New York, Ltd. (2d Cir. 1971)
Colligan v. Activities Club of New York, Ltd. (2d Cir. 1971)
DCA Food Industries Inc. v. Hawthorn Mellody, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1979)
Sarah Coventry, Inc. v. T. Sardelli & Sons, Inc. (1st Cir. 1975)
Ames Publishing Co. v. Walker-Davis Publications, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1974)
Skil Corporation v. Rockwell International Corp. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1974)
Glenn v. Advertising Publications, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1966)
Smith-Victor Corporation v. Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1965)
Wilson Jones Company v. The Gilbert & Bennett Manufacturing Company (2d Cir. 1964)
Travelodge Corporation v. Siragusa (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama 1964)
Zandelin v. Maxwell Bentley Mfg. Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1961)
NORWICH PHARMACAL COMPANY v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1960)
American Rolex Watch Corp. v. Jack Laufer & Jan Voort, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 1959)
Marshall v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co. (District Court, D. Maryland 1959)
Mutation Mink Breeders Ass'n v. Lou Nierenberg Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1959)
Aluminum Fabricating Company of Pittsburgh and Season-All Sales Corp. v. Season-All Window Corp. (2d Cir. 1958)
Parkway Baking Co. v. Freihofer Baking Co. (3d Cir. 1958)
Alpo Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Company (D.C. Cir. 1990)
Alpo Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co. (District Court, District of Columbia 1989)
American Rockwool, Inc. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1986)
Thorn, Philip A. v. Reliance Van Company, Inc., Welsh, Thomas, Weatherley, Charles A., Bailey, Emma M., and O'neal, N.A. Michael, Jr (3d Cir. 1984)
PepsiCo, Inc. v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1984)
U-Haul International, Inc. v. Jartran, Inc. (9th Cir. 1982)

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

PER CURIAM.

Gold Seal Company sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a decree authorizing the Commissioner of Patents to register as a trade-mark the words Glass Wax used by it as a name for a liquid cleaner of glass and metal. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., answered, seeking a declaratory judgment that the words Glass Wax do not constitute a lawful trade-mark, and counter-claiming for in-junctive relief, profits and damages on the ground that the mark constitutes a false representation and description of goods, thereby causing Johnson damage or the likelihood of damage. Gold Seal’s complaint was dismissed, as was Johnson’s counter-claim, and the latter appeals.

For the reasons given in District Judge Youngdahl’s opinion, Gold Seal Company v. Weeks, D.C.D.C.1955, 129 F. Supp. 928, at pages 937-940, the dismissal of the counter-claim is

Affirmed.

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