George Ewing Martin
Judge Martin no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Martin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Martin evaluated trademark confusion by comparing the marks as wholes rather than isolating shared descriptive elements.
“Viewing applicant’s combined mark as a whole, it is not believed there would be confusion in trade”
He found confusion likely where identical wording appeared on closely related textile goods and could impede the earlier registrant's legitimate expansion.
“The marks are substantially identical, the goods possess the same descriptive properties, and the registration of applicant's mark would likely lead to confusion to the prejudice of the prior registrant and the public.”
Procedural preferences
Martin declined to review fact-bound issues when the appellate record lacked both a bill of exceptions and a statement of evidence.
“The record, however, contains no bill of exceptions, nor statement of evidence by the lower court, and we are therefore unable to review the court’s decision thereon.”
He dismissed an appeal from a preliminary injunction when the statutory route for a discretionary special appeal had not been invoked.
“The appeal accordingly was prematurely brought.”
On demurrer, Martin emphasized that accepting pleaded facts did not decide the case's ultimate merits.
“It must be understood that we are not passing judgment, either expressly or impliedly, upon the final merits of this case.”
Cautions
Martin treated a medicinal mixture as unpatentable where the ingredients' claimed properties were already public knowledge and the combination produced no new composition.
“The record does not show that the combinations set out by appellant result in any new chemical composition, and it is fair to *880assume that they' are mere aggregations.”
He avoided technical construction when the language of a will was plain and unambiguous.
“In our opinion the language of testator’s •will is plain and unambiguous, and neither requires nor admits of construction according to technical rules.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“we reverse the judgment of the lower court in this ease, and remand the cause for further proceedings not inconsistent therewith.”
“The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is accordingly reversed.”
“the orders of the lower court involved in these appeals are reversed, with costs, and the several causes are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with said decision.”
“The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is accordingly affirmed.”
“the decrees of the lower court in the latter cases, to wit, No. 4450 and No. 4451, are reversed, with costs, and the several causes are remanded, for further proceedings not inconsistent with our decision in No. 4449.”
“The judgment of the municipal court is accordingly reversed, with costs, and the cause is remanded, with directions to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff below, with costs.”
“the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, appealed from in this case, is affirmed.”
“The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed.”
“The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed.”
“The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is accordingly affirmed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Not applicable to this circuit-court record.
A historical record
Judge Martin no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.