S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Gold Seal Co., 230 F.2d 832 (D.C. Cir. 1956). · Go Syfert
Search
S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Gold Seal Co., 230 F.2d 832 (D.C. Cir. 1956). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
69 citation events across 22 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Burndy Corp. v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 584 F. Supp. 656 (D. Conn. 1984)
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958 1992 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
S. C. JOHNSON & SON, Inc., Appellant,
v.
GOLD SEAL COMPANY Et Al., Appellees
12764.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Mar 8, 1956.
Published opinion
230 F.2d 832
1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3327
Messrs. Francis C. Browne and William E. Schuyler, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Floyd E. Thompson, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, Chicago, 111., pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Messrs. Edward B. Beale, Washington, D. C., and Maurice M. Moore, Minneapolis, Minn., were on the brief, for appellee Gold Seal Co., Messrs. Clarence W. Moore, Sol., U. S. Patent Office, and E. L. Reynolds, Sol., U. S. Patent Office, at the time record was filed, entered appearances for appellees Sinclair Weeks, Secretary of Commerce, and Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents.
Prettyman, Miller, Washington.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Gold Seal Company sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a decree authorizing the Commissioner of Patents to register as a trade-mark the words Glass Wax used by it as a name for a liquid cleaner of glass and metal. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., answered, seeking a declaratory judgment that the words Glass Wax do not constitute a lawful trade-mark, and counter-claiming for in-junctive relief, profits and damages on the ground that the mark constitutes a false representation and description of goods, thereby causing Johnson damage or the likelihood of damage. Gold Seal’s complaint was dismissed, as was Johnson’s counter-claim, and the latter appeals.

For the reasons given in District Judge Youngdahl’s opinion, Gold Seal Company v. Weeks, D.C.D.C.1955, 129 F. Supp. 928, at pages 937-940, the dismissal of the counter-claim is

Affirmed.