Job Barnard

Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (now U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) district Retired 1914 · served 1899–1914 Appointed by William McKinley (Republican) 8 signed orders read

Judge Barnard no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Barnard decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

He applied claim preclusion to prevent a successor trademark applicant from relitigating the same registration issue decided against its predecessor.

“the decision of the Commissioner in said cause No. 27,610, is res judicata.”

He read congressional amendments together to conclude that the federal government retained control over undivided Cherokee property until final enrollment and dissolution.

“Congress intended to retain control of the surplus lands and funds of the Cherokee tribe until such time as the enrolment of members should be complete, and until the final dissolution of the tribal government.”

He treated a mark that conveys a product's quality as descriptive and therefore available for competitors to use.

“being a word of description, any manufacturer of flour of the quality indicated by it has a right to use it.”

Cautions

He treated a guardian's unauthorized pledge of an infant's property as void and placed the risk on the pawnbroker.

“the pawnbroker should have inquired and found out whether she had such order or not, or that, if he did not do so, he would take the goods at his own peril.”

He rejected a product label when its wording would mislead buyers about the goods' composition.

“registration must be refused, because of the deceptive character of the words composing the trademark, as they would be likely to deceive purchasers”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Palmer v. Colladay
· 1901-06-18
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“the order discharging the appellee from custody, must be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the writ of habeas corpus.”

Mertz v. District of Columbia
· 1901-06-18
Appeal (defendant) Denied

“the judgment of the police court will, therefore, be affirmed, with costs”

American Graphophone Co. v. Smith
· 1906-01-17
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs”

Easterling v. Horning
· 1908-01-06
Appeal (guardian for infant plaintiff) Granted

“The judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia is therefore reversed, with costs, and the case is remanded to that court for a new trial”

T. M. Kildow Cigar Co. v. George B. Sprague Cigar Co.
· 1910-05-26
Trademark appeal (trademark applicant) Denied

“The decision of the Commissioner of Patents will therefore be affirmed.”

In re Safety Remedy Co.
· 1910-05-26
Trademark appeal (trademark applicant) Denied

“The decision of the Commissioner in this case will therefore be affirmed.”

Gritts v. Fisher
· 1911-11-06
Appeal (complainants-appellants) Denied

“the decree of the learned justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sustaining the demurrers and dismissing the bill, was correct, and the same will therefore be affirmed.”

Sauers Milling Co. v. Kehlor Flour Mills Co.
· 1913-01-22
Trademark appeal (opposer-appellant) Granted

“that tbe decision of tbe Commissioner of Patents must be reversed, and tbe opposition sustained.”

A historical record

Judge Barnard 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.