Case ID: f2d_26/html/1013-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ROBB, Associate Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MANHATTAN SHIRT CO. v. NATIONAL DEPARTMENT STORES, Inc.
    Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted May 14, 1928.
    Decided June 4, 1928.
    No. 2058.
    Trade-marks and trade-names and unfair competition <®=>43 — Word “NADSCO,” arranged within diamond outline, held sufficiently dissimilar to word “MANSCO,” above representation of electric fan, as to permit concurrent use.
    Word “NADSCO,” arranged within a diamond outline, apparently built up ás a trademark from initial and other letters of firm or corporate names, heldt sufficiently dissimilar from, word “MANSCO,” arranged above representation of electric fan, as to permit concurrent use without likelihood of confusion.
    Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
    Opposition by the Manhattan Shirt Company to the registration by the National Department Stores, Ine., of a trade-mark. Prom a decision dismissing the opposition, the objector appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Louis Alexander, of New York City, for appellant.
    J. K. Brachvogel, of New York City, and H. E. Seidel, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
    Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
   ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a Patent Office decision dismissing appellant's opposition to the registration by appellee of the word “NADSCO,” arranged within a diamond outline, the letters becoming smaller towards the narrower portions of the diamond.

Prior to the adoption and use by appellee of its mark, appellant adopted and registered the word “MANSCO,” arranged above a representation of an electric fan.

The Assistant Commissioner pointed out that it was common practice “to build up trade-marks from initial and other letters of firm or corporate names,” and that such notations or marks “very frequently end with the letters ‘co/ or even ‘sco.’ ” It is apparent that this practice was followed by the parties in this ease.

We agree with the Patent Office that the two marks hei'e involved are sufficiently dissimilar as to permit their concurrent use without the likelihood of confusion.

Decision affirmed.

Affirmed.