Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Companhia Antarctica Paulista v. Coe

146 F.2d 669

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1945-01-15
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This is an action brought under Section 4915, R.S.1 seeking registration of the word “Antarctica” as a trade-mark. The court below held that since the term was the name of a continent it came within the proviso2 of Section 5 of the Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 85, making merely geographical terms not entitled to registration. Appellant insists that the use of “Antarctica” as applied to its product is not “merely geographical” within the terms of the proviso. It argues that the public knows that Antarctica is an uninhabited country and therefore cannot be the origin of the product, — since the use of the geographical term is fanciful it is more than “merely geographical”.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Companhia Antarctica Paulista v. Coe. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
COMPANHIA ANTARCTICA PAULISTA v. COE,146 F.2d 669(D.C. Cir. 1945)
COMPANHIA ANTARCTICA PAULISTA v. COE, Commissioner of Patents.
No. 8796.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued December 8, 1944.
Decided January 15, 1945.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Action by Companhia Antarctica Paulista against Conway P. Coe, Commissioner of Patents, seeking registration of a trade-mark. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.
Mr. Gilbert P. Ritter, of Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Henry K. Muir, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. E.L. Reynolds, of Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. W.W. Cochran, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before MILLER, EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
This is an action brought under Section 4915, R.S.1seeking registration of the word "Antarctica" as a trade-mark. The court below held that since the term was the name of a continent it came within the proviso2of Section 5 of the Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 85, making merely geographical terms not entitled to registration.

Appellant insists that the use of "Antarctica" as applied to its product is not "merely geographical" within the terms of the proviso. It argues that the public knows that Antarctica is an uninhabited country and therefore cannot be the origin of the product, — since the use of the geographical term is fanciful it is more than "merely geographical". We cannot read such an exception into the plain language of the act.3

Affirmed.Page 670
  1. 35 U.S.C.A. § 63. ↩
  2. "No mark by which the goods of the owner of the mark may be distinguished from other goods of the same class shall be refused registration as a trade-mark on account of the nature of such mark unless such mark — * * *

    "(b) Consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States or any simulation thereof, * * *: Provided, That no mark which consists merely in the name of an individual, firm, corporation, or association not written, printed, impressed, or woven in some particular or distinctive manner, or in association with a portrait of the individual, or merely in words or devices which are descriptive of the goods with which they are used, or of the character or quality of such goods, or merely a geographical name or term, shall be registered under the terms of this subdivision * * *." 15 U.S.C.A. § 85. ↩
  3. Kraft Cheese Co. v. Coe, ___ App. D.C. ___,146 F.2d 313; In re Kraft-Phenix Cheese Corporation, Cust. Pat. App., 1941,120 F.2d 391; In re Crescent Typewriter Supply Co., 1908,30 App.D.C. 324. ↩