Case Name: FISCHER v. CHAS. R. LONG, JR., COMPANY
Court: Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1919-03-31
Citations: 48 App. D.C. 594
Docket Number: No. 1221
Parties: FISCHER v. CHAS. R. LONG, JR., COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Volume: 48
Pages: 594–595

Head Matter:
FISCHER v. CHAS. R. LONG, JR., COMPANY.
Trademarks ; Goods op thej Same Descriptive Properties.
Registration of the word “StaBrite” as a trademark for a varnish and paint preserver is properly refused by the Commissioner of Patents on the opposition of a prior user of the word “stabrite” for the coating of the front ends and stacks of locomotives to preserve the metal over which it is applied. (Following Phcenix Pamt é Tarnish Co. v. John T. Lewis & Bros. Co. 32 App. D. C.'285 and Fish-heck Soap Co. v. Kleeno Mfg. Co. 44 App. D. C. 6.)
No. 1221,
Patent Appeals.
Submitted March 12, 1919.
Decided March 31, 1919.
Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents sustaining an opposition to the registration of a trademark.
Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. F. A. Whiteley and Mr. J. II. lluckman for the appellant.
Mr. F. 8. Appleman and Mr. Paul Carpenter for the appellee.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam:
This case is here on appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents sustaining the opposition of appellee, Chas. R. Long, Jr., Company, to the registration to appellant, Howard L. Fischer, of the word "StaBrite" as a trademark for a varnish and paint preserver.
Appellee has extensively used the mark "Stahrite" "for the coating of the front ends and stacks of locomotives to preserve the metal over which it is applied." The marks are the same. Opposer used the mark long prior to any date claimed by appellant. The sole question is, Are the goods to which they are applied of the same descriptive properties ? The product of each party is used to polish painted surfaces, and they can be interehangeably used for the same purpose. The Commissioner properly adjudged the case to be ruled by Phœnix Paint & Varnish Co. v. John T. Lewis & Bros. Co. 32 App. D. C. 285, and Fishbeck Soap Co. v. Kleeno Mfg. Co. 44 App. D. C. 6.
The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, and the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as by law required. Affirmed.