1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 83 F.2d
  5. 83 F.2d 906 (1936)
 

PEPSODENT CO. v. COMFORT MFG. CO.

Patent Appeal No. 3663.

83 F.2d 906 (1936)

PEPSODENT CO. v. COMFORT MFG. CO.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

June 8, 1936.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Edward S. Rogers and William T. Woodson, both of Chicago, Ill., and Thomas L. Mead, Jr., of Washington, D. C. (James H. Rogers, of Chicago, Ill., and Browne & Phelps, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.

Howard S. Neiman, of New York City, for appellee.

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

BLAND, Associate Judge.

This is an opposition proceeding instituted in the United States Patent Office under the Trade-Mark Act of 1905, as amended (15 U.S.C.A. § 81 et seq.). The appellant, opposer, alleged in its notice of opposition that it and its predecessor, since May 6, 1915, have continuously used as a trade-mark for dentifrices the word "Pepsodent," and that it was the owner of the mark "Pepsodent" which was registered in the United States Patent Office...

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