Case Name: INTERNATIONAL FOOD COMPANY v. PRICE BAKING POWDER COMPANY
Court: Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1911-04-05
Citations: 37 D.C. App. 137
Docket Number: No. 634
Parties: INTERNATIONAL FOOD COMPANY v. PRICE BAKING POWDER COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Volume: 37
Pages: 137–138

Head Matter:
INTERNATIONAL FOOD COMPANY v. PRICE BAKING POWDER COMPANY.
Trademarks.
The word “Cream” is registerable as a technical trademark for baking' powder. (Chief Justice Shepard dissenting.)
No. 634.
Patent Appeals.
Submitted March 15, 1911.
Decided April 5, 1911.
Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, dismissing an opposition to the registration of a: trademark.
Affirmed.
the facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. A. Q. Paul and Mr. Wm. G. Henderson for the appellant
Mr. Archibald Cox for the appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Van Orsdel
delivered the opinion of the Court r
This is an opposition by the appellant company, the International Food Company, to the registration of the word "Cream" as a trademark for baking powder by the appelleecompany, the Price Baking Powder Company. It was beld to be entitled to registration by botb the tribunals of the Patent-: Office. From the decision of the Commissioner, dismissing-the opposition, this appeal was taken.
It appears tbat appellee bas used the mark since 1866 in connection with "Dr. Price's" or "Price's Baking Powder."' It is conceded tbat appellee was the prior user. Hence, the sole question bere presented is whether or not the word "cream"' is registrable as a technical trademark for baking powder. 'This question has been before the courts, and in each instance •it has been held to be a valid technical trademark. Price Baking-Powder Co. v. Fyfe, 45 Fed. 799; Albers Bros. Mill. Co. Acme Mills Co. 171 Fed. 989. See also Paul, Trade-Marks, sec. 64.
With the conclusion reached in these cases and in the opinion of the Commissioner of Patents, we find no reason to disagree. The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed, and the -clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as by law required.
Affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Shepard dissenting.