From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Skookum Packers' Ass'n v. Pac. N.W. Canning

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Dec 19, 1930
45 F.2d 915 (C.C.P.A. 1930)

Opinion

Patent Appeal No. 2523.

December 19, 1930.

Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.

Eugene E. Stevens, of Washington, D.C. (Edward D. Jones, of Chicago, Ill., and Albert L. Jacobs, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant.

George C. Shoemaker and Harry F. Riley, both of Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.


This is an appeal in a trade-mark opposition proceeding. The Commissioner of Patents held that appellant was estopped to oppose the registration sought by appellee, and reversed the decision of the Examiner of Trade-Mark Interferences, which sustained the notice of opposition and adjudged that appellee was not entitled to the registration sought by its application. From this decision of the Commissioner appellant takes this appeal.

The issues involved herein are substantially the same as those involved in the case between the same parties, 45 F.2d 912, Patent Appeal No. 2522, decided this day (Patents), and by stipulation of the parties the record in said last-named case became the record in the case at bar.

For the reasons given in our decision in said Patent Appeal No. 2522, the decision of the Commissioner of Patents is reversed.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Skookum Packers' Ass'n v. Pac. N.W. Canning

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Dec 19, 1930
45 F.2d 915 (C.C.P.A. 1930)
Case details for

Skookum Packers' Ass'n v. Pac. N.W. Canning

Case Details

Full title:SKOOKUM PACKERS' ASSOCIATION v. PACIFIC NORTHWEST CANNING CO

Court:Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Date published: Dec 19, 1930

Citations

45 F.2d 915 (C.C.P.A. 1930)

Citing Cases

Pratt Food Co. v. Crete Mills

That he did expressly determine and declare in his decision in this case. Our recent decision in the Skookum…

Etablissements Rene Beziers, Societe Anonyme, v. Reid, Murdoch & Co.

This it is unnecessary for us to decide because we have repeatedly held that, in proceedings under section 7…