
    IN RE FITZPATRICK BROS.
    Trademarks.
    1. The Trademark Act provides for the registration of actual, and not fictitious, trademarks. (Following He Mota Tire & Rubber Go. 40 App. D. C. 487; and Quaker Oity Flour Mills Oo. v. Quaker Oats Oo. 43 App. D. C. 260.) . • '
    2. In an application for tho registration of the word “Kitchen” as a trademark for a cleaning and scouring preparation, where it appeared that the word was used in connection with the word “Klenzer,” with the common initial letter “K,” it was held that this did not constitute trademark use of the word sought to he registered.
    3. Quaire, as to whether the word “Kitchen,” so used, was descriptive.
    No. 1178.
    Patent Appeals.
    Submitted November 18, 1918.
    Decided December 2, 1918.
    Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents rejecting an application for the registration of a trademark.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. J. H. J odium, Jr., and Mr. E. S. Clarkson for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Theodore A. Hostetler for the Commissioner of Patents.
   Mr. Justice Pobb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appeal by Fitzpatrick Bros, from a decision of the Patent Office denying appellant’s application for the registration of the word “Kitchen” as a trademark for a cleaning’ and scouring preparation for household uses.

The specimens of the mark filed with the application, and which the applicant stated. under oath truly represented the mark sought to be registered, showed that the word “Kitchen” was not used alone, but with “Klenzer,” with the common initial letter “K,” thus: “K\^“.” The Patent Office ruled that the word “Kitchen” had not been shown to have been used as a trademark, and further that it would have been descriptive if it had. The Trademark Act provides for the registration of actual, and not fictitious, trademarks. This we already have determined. Re Motz Tire & Rubber Co. 40 App. D. C. 487; Quaker City Flour Mills Co. v. Quaker Oats Co. 43 App. D. C. 260.

The failure to show trademark use renders it unnecessary to consider any other question.

The decision is affirmed. Affirmed.  