Case Name: L. CANDEE & COMPANY v. B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY; L. CANDEE & COMPANY v. HOOD RUBBER COMPANY
Court: Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1915-10-11
Citations: 44 App. D.C. 53
Docket Number: Nos. 987 and 988
Parties: L. CANDEE & COMPANY v. B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY. L. CANDEE & COMPANY v. HOOD RUBBER COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Volume: 44
Pages: 53–54

Head Matter:
L. CANDEE & COMPANY v. B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY. L. CANDEE & COMPANY v. HOOD RUBBER COMPANY.
Appeal and Error; Trademarks; Interlocutory Order.
An appeal does not lie to tliis court by one of the parties to a trademark interference proceeding from an order of the Commissioner of Patents dissolving the interference, which does not finally refuse registration to either party. (Following Union Distilling Go. v. Schneider, 29 App. D. C. 1; and Mann v. Brown, 43 Apj>. D. C. 457.)
Nos. 987 and 988.
Patent Appeals.
Submitted October 7, 1915.
Decided October 11, 1915.
Motion to dismiss appeals from decisions of the Commissioner of Patents dissolving trademark interferences.
Granted.
Interferences were declared in the Patent Office between marks of the appellant, L. Oandee & Company, and marks of the appellees, the B. P. Goodrich Company and the Hood Rubber Company, for rubber boots and shoes. The mark for which the appellant sopght registration consisted of a narrow embossed band on the upper margin of hoots or shoes, which mark could be. affixed to the goods by cementing, impressing, or embossing the same directly on the goods. The mark of the B. F. Goodrich Company for which it sought registration consisted of a narrow band of red appearing around the top edge of the boot. The Hood Rubber Company had obtained registration for a mark consisting of a gray band completely encircling the top of the boot. The Commissioner of Patents dissolved the interference “on the grounds, first, that the embossed band on the top of the rubber boot is a useful mechanical feature; and, second, that the claim of the appellant was too broad in any-view of the ease.”
Mr. Edward W. Vaill for the appellant.
Mr. William F. Hall and Mr. James M. Spear for the appellees.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Shepard
delivered the opinion of the Court:
Motion to dismiss appeals sustained. References, Union Distilling Co. v. Schneider, 29 App. D. C. 1; Mann v. Brown, 43 App. D. C. 45 7.