Case ID: app-dc_41/html/0506-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Robb", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

E. A. BROMUND COMPANY v. COLUMBIA WAX PRODUCTS COMPANY.
    Trademarks ; Similarity.
    No such deceptive similarity exists between the words “Grand-ma’s” and “Mother’s” as warrants the denial on opposition of the registration of the former as a trademark for an article for which the latter has already been adopted by another person. (Citing A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick <G B. Rope Co. 36 App. D. C. 451.)
    No. 884.
    Patent Appeal.
    Submitted January 15, 1914.
    Decided February 2, 1914.
    Hearing on an appeal from a decision of- the Commissioner of Patents sustaining a demurrer to a trademark opposition.
    Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. Arthur H. Serrell for the appellant.
    . Mr. Charles H. Wilson for the appellee.
   Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents sustaining the demurrer of the .Columbia .Wax Products Company, appellee, to tlie trademark opposition filed by E. A. Bromund Company, appellant, and holding that appellee is entitled to the registration of the word “Grand-ma’s” as a trademark for a perfumed waxing pad, notwithstanding the prior adoption and use of the word “Mother’s” by the appellant as a trademark for such pads.

In his decision the Commissioner says: “While the words ‘Mother’s’ and ‘Grand-ma’s’ both refer to a woman, these words neither look alike nor sound alike, and in view of the common use of these words by persons of all classes as referring to well-known relationships, it is not believed that they are so alike that there is any liability of purchasers being deceived by the mere use thereof. This is so obvious that in my opinion it is unnecessary to set this case down for taking testimony.” In cases of this kind “the evidence of the eyes is more persuasive and satisfactory than any other.” Layton Pure Food Co. v. Church & D. Co. 104 C. C. A. 464, 182 Fed. 24; A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick & B. Rope Co. 36 App. D. C. 451.

We agree with the view of the Commissioner, and therefore affirm his decision. Affirmed.