From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Switzer v. J.N. Collins Co.

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Dec 5, 1927
23 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1927)

Opinion

No. 1976.

Submitted November 17, 1927.

Decided December 5, 1927.

Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.

Opposition by Frederick M. Switzer to the registration of a trade-mark by the J.N. Collins Company. From the decision, the opposer appeals. Affirmed.

E.T. Fenwick and E.G. Fenwick, both of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

A.C. Paul, of Minneapolis, Minn., and W.G. Henderson, of Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.


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 are 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's 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.


Summaries of

Switzer v. J.N. Collins Co.

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Dec 5, 1927
23 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1927)
Case details for

Switzer v. J.N. Collins Co.

Case Details

Full title:SWITZER v. J.N. COLLINS CO

Court:Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia

Date published: Dec 5, 1927

Citations

23 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1927)
57 App. D.C. 354

Citing Cases

Coca-Cola Co. v. Carlisle Bottling Works

" In the second "Cottolene" was held to be infringed by "Cottolean." The defendant's attorneys cite the…

Dietene Co. v. Dietrim Co.

" Other cases reaching a somewhat similar result are Caron Corporation v. Ollendorff, 2 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d…