Case Name: The Green Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. National Shoes, Inc.
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1960-05-03
Citations: 47 C.C.P.A. 936
Docket Number: No. 6500
Parties: The Green Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. National Shoes, Inc.
Judges: Before Wobley, Chief Judge, and Rich, Mastín, and Smith, Associate Judges, and Judge William H. Kirkpatrick:
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 936–937

Head Matter:
277 F. 2d 943; 125 USPQ 575
The Green Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. National Shoes, Inc.
(No. 6500)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
May 3, 1960
Kenway, Jenny, Witter & Hildreth, H. W. Kenway, Dos T. Hatfield for appellant.
Henry L. BurMtt for appellee.
Before Wobley, Chief Judge, and Rich, Mastín, and Smith, Associate Judges, and Judge William H. Kirkpatrick:
United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O’Connell, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 2(8, United States Code.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam:
This appeal is from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner sustaining the dismissal of appellant's opposition to the registration of "STRIDE WELL" by Rational Shoes, Inc. as a trademark for children's shoes. The opposition was based npon The Green Shoe Manufacturing Company's prior registrations of "StrideRite" as a trademark for shoes.
It has come to our attention that subsequent to the Assistant Commissioner's decision in this case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in The Green Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. National Shoes Inc., Civil Action 147-215, entered a consent judgment on September 10, 1959 holding that appellee's mark "STRIDE WELL" infringes upon appellant's registered marks; that the court permanently enjoined appellee from using its said mark; and that subsequent to that judgment, appellee filed in the Patent Office a formal abandonment of the application involved in this appeal.
In view of those facts, it is thought that this case should be further considered by the Patent Office prior to a decision by this court, and accordingly the case is remanded to the Patent Office for consideration of the matters stated above, and for such further action, if any, as may be considered proper in view thereof.
Remanded.