1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 56 F.2d
  5. 56 F.2d 292 (1932)
 

UNITED SHOE MACH. CORP. v. COMPO SHOE MACH. CORP.

Patent Appeals Nos. 2879-2881.

56 F.2d 292 (1932)

UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION v. COMPO SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION (two cases). SAME v. BRESNAHAN SHOE CO.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

February 29, 1932.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

A. D. Salinger, of Boston, Mass. (Horace A. Dodge, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.

Watson, Bristol, Johnson & Leavenworth, of New York City (Ellis W. Leavenworth, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

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

BLAND, Associate Judge.

This case involves three appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, the first and second of which (Nos. 2879 and 2880) are opposition proceedings in which appellant opposed, in the first opposition, the registration by appellee of the word "Compo" as a trade-mark for adhesive shoe cement used in making "Compo" shoes, and, in the second opposition, opposed the registration of the same trade-mark for a shoe cement softener.

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases