Case Name: BEECHNUT CEREAL CO. v. BEECH-NUT PACKING CO.
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1921-05-02
Citations: 273 F. 367
Docket Number: No. 1283
Parties: BEECHNUT CEREAL CO. v. BEECH-NUT PACKING CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 273
Pages: 367–368

Head Matter:
BEECHNUT CEREAL CO. v. BEECH-NUT PACKING CO.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 16, 1920.
Decided May 2, 1921.)
No. 1283.
Trade-marks and trade-names —Substantial part of corporato name of existing corporation cannot be registered.
“Beechnut,” as a trademark for cereal breakfast food, was not entitled to registration, on opposition by the Beech-Nut Packing Company; it being a substantial part of the corporate name of the opposing company, which company was organized long prior to the applicant’s entry into the field.
Appeal from 1he Commissioner of Patents.
Application by the Beechnut Cereal Company for the registration of a trade-mark, opposed by the Beech-Nut Packing Company. From a decision of the Patent Office, sustaining the opposition, applicant appeals.
Affirmed.
other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Vernon E. West, of Washington, D. C., and S. W. Banning, of Chicago, 111., for appellant.
Joseph H. Milans afid Calvin T. Milans, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office sus-
taining the opposition of the Beech-Nut Packing Company, appellee here, to the 'registration by the appellant of the term "Beechnut" as a trade-mark for cereal breakfast foods.
"Beech-Nut" being a substantial part of the corporate name of the appellee company, which was organized long prior to appellant's entiy into the field, the case is ruled by prior decisions of this court. Mansfield Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 44 App. D. C. 205; In re United Drug Co., 44 App. D. C. 209; Burrell v. Simplex Electric Heating Co., 44 App. D. C. 452; Howard Co. v. Baldwin Co., 48 App. D. C. 437.
The decision is affirmed.