Clark Equip. Co. v. Weeks, Sec'y of Com., 215 F.2d 678 (D.C. Cir. 1954). · Go Syfert
Search
Clark Equip. Co. v. Weeks, Sec'y of Com., 215 F.2d 678 (D.C. Cir. 1954). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Monroe v. United States (cadc, 1956-04-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." cadc 1956
D.C. Cir. · 1956 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Nelms v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 267 , 215 F.2d 678 ; Washington v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. ___ , 232 F.2d 357 3 The conspiracy charged was to obtain loans under the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C.A. § 1701 et seq. for purposes outside its terms 4 Smith was convicted of the single bribery charge which was brought against him
cited Cited "see, e.g." Monroe v. United States
D.C. Cir. · 1956 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Nelms v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 267 , 215 F.2d 678 ; Washington v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. -, 232 F.2d 357 . .
Clark Equipment Co.
v.
Weeks, Secretary of Commerce
11900.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Oct 15, 1954.
215 F.2d 678
Published

215 F.2d 678

94 U.S.App.D.C. 426, 100 U.S.P.Q. 261,
103 U.S.P.Q. 291

CLARK EQUIPMENT CO.
v.
WEEKS, Secretary of Commerce et al.

Nos. 11899, 11900.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Jan. 26, 1954.
Decided Feb. 18, 1954.
Petition for Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1954.

Mr. John A Dienner, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Francis C. Browne and William E. Schuyler, Jr., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. E. L. Reynolds, Sol., Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN, and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[*~678]1

The District Court sustained appellees in refusing to register, as alleged trade-marks for appellant's fork lift trucks, the terms Trucloader and Carloader. The court found that these are generic names of the goods and have not become distinctive of appellant's goods. We see no reason to disturb these findings. We need not consider whether these 'generic names' might some day become distinctive of appellant's goods and whether, if they did, they would be entitled to registration. During the argument of these appeals it was suggested that 'Clark's Trucloader' and 'clark's Carloader' might be entitled to registration, but that question is not before us.

[*~679]2

Affirmed.