Court Opinion

ID: 9444218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:46:30.38753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:46.610671
License: Public Domain

O’CONNELL, Judge
(dissenting).
The decision appealed from should be affirmed (1) for the reasons stated in the respective decisions of the tribunals of the Patent Office; (2) that the proof submitted by appellant, even if it were sufficient in character, covers less than one half of the states of the Union; (3) in the remainder of such states, the use “Butter-Nut,” a generic term, whether used descriptively or misdescriptively as a trade-mark, cannot be appropriated . there by appellant to its exclusive use, because the term may be fittingly used by others, as a matter of right, in advertising and carrying on their dealing, in butternuts and goods made therefrom, Cridlebaugh v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 158 F.2d 646, 34 C.C.P.A., Patents, 742, and (4) appellant’s claim to exclusive use of “Butter-Nut” for the past five years has failed to acknowledge, as *142it must, the long established identical mark used by .another on-.bread. Nafziger v. Schulze Baking Company, 46 App.D.C. 292.