Case ID: f2d_17/html/0688-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MONTEVALLO MINING CO. v. LITTLE GEM COAL CO. et al.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted January 10, 1927.
    Decided February 7, 1927.)
    
      No. 1890.
    
    Trade-marks and trade-names and unfair competition <@=>43 — “Montevallo,” being name of town, held.not registrable as trade-mark for use on coal.
    “Montevallo,” the name of a town in Alabama, held purely geographical, and not registrable as trade-mark for use on coal.
    Appeal from Commissioner of Patents.
    Trade-mark cancellation proceeding by the Little Gem Coal Company and another against the Montevallo Mining Company. Prom a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, granting cancellation, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    H. S. Hill, of Cleveland, Ohio, and J. F. Robb and H. C. Robb, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
    H. H. Semmes, of Washington, D. C., and W. D. Arant, of Birmingham, Ala., for appellees.
    Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
   VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This is a trade-mark cancellation proceeding, brought by Little Gem Coal Company and its distributing agent, Blake Coal Company, seeking the cancellation of the trade-mark “Montevallo,” registered by appellant, Montevallo Mining Company, for use on coal.

It appears that situated in the Cahaba Valley in Alabama is the town of Mon'tevallo. This town existed long prior to the discovery of deposits of coal in the Cahaba Valley. It further appears that appellant and appellees companies are both engaged in the coal-mining industry, extracting coal from the same seam, located in what is known as the Montevallo Basin, in the vicinity of the town of Montevallo. The mark is purely geographical, and is not subject, under the Trade-Mark Act, to registration by either company.

The decision of the Commissioner of Patents, canceling the registration of the mark by appellant company, is right, and accordingly affirmed.