Court Opinion

ID: 9635998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:11:52.897349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:23.680990
License: Public Domain

SWAN, Circuit Judge.
I reluctantly concur in the result, because the Commission has made findings of deception of the pubr lie, which there is some evidence to support, though in my opinion it is greatly outweighed *343by contrary evidence. The purchasing public knows little, and cares less, I think, about the botanical characteristics of mahogany. The Philippine government, our own Departments of War)' Commerce, and Agriculture, and the Interstate Commerce Commission have been accustomed for years to refer to the woods in question as “Philippine mahogany.” The National Hardware Lumber Association has, since 1916, established rules for grading “Philippine mahogany.” This term is used in foreign countries also. Combined with the word “Philippine,” “mahogany” is used in its commercial, as distinguished from its botanical, sense. Such usage is common in the lumber industry. Witness: Douglas fir or Oregon pine, which is a false hemlock; red cedar, which is a juniper; and many other instances which might be cited. Interference with such commercial usage does not seem to me justifiable, but in view of the Commission’s findings, the court is powerless.