Case Name: NATIONAL BISCUIT CO. v. BISHOP & CO.
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1923-02-05
Citations: 286 F. 464
Docket Number: No. 1536
Parties: NATIONAL BISCUIT CO. v. BISHOP & CO.
Judges: Before SMYTH, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 286
Pages: 464–464

Head Matter:
NATIONAL BISCUIT CO. v. BISHOP & CO.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Decided February 5, 1923.)
No. 1536.
Trade-marks and trade-names and unfair competition <®=>43 — “O-Such-A” not deceptively similar to “Uneeda.”
Tbe trade-mark “O-Sucb-A,” as applied to biscuit, is not deceptively similar to tbe prior trade-mark, “Uneeda,” applied to biscuit by tbe opposer.
(@saFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
Application by Bishop & Co. for registration of a trade-mark, opposed by the National Biscuit Company. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, allowing the registration, the opposer appeals. Affirmed.
William L,. Symons, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
J. W. Milburn, of Washington, D. C.,' for appellee.
Before SMYTH, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

Opinion:
.SMYTH, Chief Justice.
Bishop & Co. made application to have registered the mark "O-Such-A" as applied to biscuit. Opposition was filed under section 6 of the Trade-Mark Act (Comp. St. § 9491) by the National Biscuit Company, on the ground that the mark of the application was deceptively similar to the registered mark "Uneeda," owned and used by the opposer and applied by it to biscuit. Testimony was taken for the purpose of showing that confusion would likely result in the public mind as to the origin of the goods bjr the use of the two marks on biscuit. The Examiner of Interferences dismissed the opposition, and the Commissioner affirmed his decision.
As already stated the contention of the appellant is that the mark of the applicant .is deceptively similar to that of the opposer. We do not think it is. The reasoning employed by us in National Biscuit Co. v. Pennsylvania Baking Co.,-App. D. C.-, 285 Fed. 1018, is applicable here. There is no need for repeating it.
Tbe decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.
Affirmed.