Case ID: f2d_23/html/0895-01.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

THREE IN ONE OIL CO. v. BOSTON BRASS CO.
    Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted November 18, 1927.
    Decided December 5, 1927.
    Petition for Rehearing Denied January 21, 1928.
    No. 1986.
    Trade-marks and trade-names and unfair competition <§=343 — Boiler valves and oil are not goods of same descriptive qualities, as affects registration of trade-mark “3 in I.”
    Registration of trade-mark “3 in 1” for use on boiler relief valves will not be denied, because of opposer’s use of such mark in manufacturing and selling .oil, since no confusion could arise from such use, goods not being of same descriptive properties.
    Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
    Application by the Boston Brass Company for the registration of a trade-mark, opposed by the Three In One Oil Company. Prom a decision dismissing the opposition, opposer appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. L. Steuart, of New York City, for appellant.
    G-. P. Dike, of Boston, Mass., and A. V. Cushman, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
    Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
   VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

Appellant, Three in One Oil Company, opposed the registration of the trade-mark “3 in 1” by appellee, Boston Brass Company, which alleges use of the trade-mark on boiler relief valves, while appellant has for many years been manufacturing and selling oil under its registered trade-mark “3 in 1.”

It is clear that no confusion can arise from the use of the marks on the respective goods to which the mark is applied. It is insisted, however, that appellee company is appropriating the corporate name of the Oil Company. It is unnecessary to discuss this proposition, in view of our decision this day delivered in Three in One Oil Co. v. Lobl Manufacturing Co., 57 App. D. C. -, 23 F.(2d) 893.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.