Case Name: NAAMLOOZE VENNOOTSCHAP LAKVERF & VERNISFABRIEK "IVORMICA" v. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1927-03-07
Citations: 18 F.2d 192
Docket Number: No.1871
Parties: NAAMLOOZE VENNOOTSCHAP LAKVERF & VERNISFABRIEK "IVORMICA” v. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO.
Judges: Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and GRAHAM, Presiding Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 18
Pages: 192–192

Head Matter:
NAAMLOOZE VENNOOTSCHAP LAKVERF & VERNISFABRIEK "IVORMICA” v. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO.
(No.1871.)
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 18, 1927.
Decided March 7, 1927.)
Application by the -Naamlooze Vennootscbap Lakverf & Vernisfabriek “Ivormiea” for registration of trade-mark opposed by the Sherwin-Williams Company. Prom a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, sustaining opposition, applicant appeals. Affirmed.
J. T. Newton, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
J. B. Pay and T. H. Pay, both of Cleve-. land, Ohio, for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and GRAHAM, Presiding Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

Opinion:
ROBB, Associate Justice.
Appeal from concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals, in a trade-mark opposition proceeding, sustaining the opposition and denying registration to appellant.
Many years prior to the'adoption and use of its mark by the applicant, the opposer, the Sherwin-Williams Company, adopted a mark consisting of a terrestial globe and a representation of a tilted paint can discharging its contents over the upper half of the globe. The phrase "Cover the Earth" has been used by the opposer, in connection with its pictorial device. A very large business has been built up by the opposer, and the mark has great value.
Applicant's mark is applied to goods of the same class. It also uses a representation of the globe, to which paint is being applied in a manner somewhat different from that employed in the Sherwin-Williams mark, but an ocular inspection of the two marks discloses that they are deceptively similar. The decision therefore is affirmed.
Affirmed.