Case Name: THE PETER SCHOENHOFEN BREWING COMPANY v. JOHN SEXTON & COMPANY
Court: Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1914-02-02
Citations: 41 App. D.C. 510
Docket Number: No. 886
Parties: THE PETER SCHOENHOFEN BREWING COMPANY v. JOHN SEXTON & COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Volume: 41
Pages: 510–511

Head Matter:
THE PETER SCHOENHOFEN BREWING COMPANY v. JOHN SEXTON & COMPANY.
Trademark; Similarity ok Goods.
The registration as a trademark for non-alcoh<olic grape .[nice, of a word already in use and registered as a trademark for lager beer, will not be denied on opposition, since tlie respective goods are not of the same descriptive properties. (Citing Múralo Go. v. National Lead Go. 36 App. D. C. 541; Johnson Educator Food Go. v. Sylvanus Smith & Go. 37 App. D. C. 107; and Hump Hairpin Go. v. De Long Hoolc é Eye Go. 39 App. D. C. 484.)
No. 886.
Patent Appeal.
Submitted January 15, 1914.
Decided February 2, 1914.
Hearing on an appeal from a decision of tbe Commissioner of Patents dismissing an opposition to the registration of a trademark.
Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Messrs. lAmthicum, Belt, & Fuller for the appellant.
Air. Waller F. Murray for the appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Shepard
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The appellee's application for the registration of "Edelweiss" as a trademark for grape juice, a non-alcoholic beverage, was allowed for publication. The Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Company, appellant, filed an opposition thereto, alleging its long prior uso, and registration of the same word as a trademark for lager beer of its manufacture.
Appellee's demurrer was sustained and the opposition dismissed on the ground that the goods of the respective parties are not of the same descriptive properties. We concur in this conclusion. Muralo Co. v. National Lead Co. 36 App. D. C. 541, 543; Johnson Educator Food Co. v. Sylvanus Smith & Co. 37 App. D. C. 107; Hump Hairpin Co. v. DeLong Hook & Eye Co. 39 App. D. C. 484, 488.
The decision is affirmed; and the clerk will certify this decision to the Commissioner of Patents. Affirmed.