Home/W.D. Kentucky/Armour & Co. v. Louisville Provision Co.

Armour & Co. v. Louisville Provision Co.

275 F. 92, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1026
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky
DecidedJanuary 22, 1921
DocketNo. 52
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 275 F. 92 (Armour & Co. v. Louisville Provision Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Armour & Co. v. Louisville Provision Co., 275 F. 92, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1026 (W.D. Ky. 1921).

Opinion

WALTER EVANS, District Judge.

The bill of complaint was filed August 21, 1918. It alleges that the plaintiff, Armour & Co., and the partnership of the same name, which it succeeded, has, since 1871, been engaged in the business of preparing, putting up, and packing meat products, including hams and bacon, at Chicago, 111., and elsewhere in the United States, and selling and distributing such meat products through its various agencies in Chicago and elsewhere throughout the United States, and particularly throughout the state of Kentucky and the Western district thereof.

It is further alleged that about the year 1877 the partnership styled Armour & Co., in good faith and without knowledge of any prior rights, had adopted as their trade-mark the symbol of a star, and also as an alternative the word “Star,” and that thereafter Armour & Co. used that trade-mark continuously upon hams and bacon of high quality throughout the United States, until that partnership was succeeded by the plaintiff corporation, and it avers that that trade-mark, as associated with hams and bacon, was well known as the trade-mark of the plaintiff and its predecessor. Plaintiff further avers that, by virtue of its acquiring the going business, good will, assets, and trademarks known as the “Armour Star,” it is the sole and exclusive owner of said trade-mark, namely, the symbol of a star and the alternative thereof, the word “Star” as applied to hams and bacon, and that it has extensively exploited and advertised the same throughout the country, including the state of Kentucky. It also avers that said “Star” trade-mark has always been used upon hams and bacon of the choicest selection, and that such hams and bacon are of the highest grades, and that the “Star” trade-mark and the good will appurtenant thereto are of great value to the plaintiff.

[94]*94It is then averred that the defendant corporation was organized in 1910, and went into the business of preparing, packing, and selling meat products, and became a competitor of the plaintiff; that it had at the time of its organization notice and was well acquainted with the trade-marks and brands of the plaintiff used upon its meat products, but that nevertheless it adopted as its trade-mark for hams and bacon and certain other products the symbol of a star associated with the word “Southern,” and adopted as the alternative of that trade-mark the word “Star,” also associated with the word “Southern,” and that the use of this trade-mark was largely unaccompanied by the name of the defendant.

The plaintiff then avers that the trade-mark “Southern Star,” adopted and used by defendant, is a palpable infringement of the “Star” trade-mark of the plaintiff, and had been since the year 1913; that such infringement continued up to the time of the filing of the bill, and thaf the sale of the meats wiih this brand thereon had been very large throughout the state of Kentucky, to the great damage of the plaintiff. The bill also alleges that the defendant had made application for the registration, as a trade-mark, of the word “Southern” in connection with the “Star,” but that such registration had been refused by the Patent Office.

Many details were stated in the bill, which it is unnecessary to repeat here, with the result that the plaintiff claims that its trade-mark has been infringed by the defendant, to the great injury of the plaintiff, and also that the conduct of the defendant has been unfairly competitive and fraudulent as to the plaintiff’s rights in its trade-mark and greatly to its injury. It is thereupon insisted that the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction against the use by the defendant of its trademark, and that the plaintiff has been damaged to the extent of $1,-000,000. • •

The defendant in its answer, after admitting certain averments of the bill, puts in issue all its other statements. Especially does it do this, first, as to plaintiff’s claim to the right to appropriate for its exclusive use as a brand or trade-mark the word “star,” or any symbol thereof; second, as the averments that the defendant had in any way used the brand “Southern Star” with any purpose or design to deceive or impose upon the public, or any purchaser or user thereof, or that in fact any purchaser or user thereof had in any way been deceived by anything done by defendant; and, third, in respect to the averments that defendant had ever been guilty of any infringement upon plaintiff’s rights, or had been guilty of any sort of unfair competition in respect thereto. On the contrary, defendant avers that during all its existence if had only, used upon its products the plainly distinguishable words “Southern Star.”

Much testimony was heard at the trial of the issues involved, and the arguments of counsel thereon were elaborate and able, showing careful study and much research. Nevertheless for obvious reasons we think we need not deal at all elaborately with those issues, nor with the testimony heard upon the respective sides. We shall therefore [95]*95state (a) our conclusions generally on the issues of fact, and (b) our conclusions, equally general, on the questions of law.

The Facts.

First. We find the fact certainly to be that Armour & Co., alike while it was a partnership and since it transmuted that partnership into the present corporation, has used continuously and very extensively for at least 45 years and throughout the entire country, including Kentucky, the word “Star” in connection with the words “Armour & Co.,” or the word “Armour,” and also an emblem of a star in connection with those words upon vast quantities of its best hams and bacons. We attach at this point specimens of those marks which are now of special importance, namely:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

California Prune & Apricot Growers' Ass'n v. H. R. Nicholson Co.
158 P.2d 764 (California Court of Appeal, 1945)
Hemmeter Cigar Co. v. Congress Cigar Co.
118 F.2d 64 (Sixth Circuit, 1941)
Glenmore Distilleries Co. v. National Distillers Products Corp.
101 F.2d 479 (Fourth Circuit, 1939)
Glenmore Distilleries Co. v. National Distillers Products Corp.
23 F. Supp. 928 (E.D. Virginia, 1938)
Maytag Co. v. Meadows Mfg. Co.
35 F.2d 403 (Seventh Circuit, 1929)
John Morrell & Co. v. Hauser Packing Co.
20 F.2d 713 (Ninth Circuit, 1927)
Gerrard v. Cary
9 F.2d 949 (E.D. New York, 1924)
Charles Broadway Rouss, Inc. v. Winchester Co.
300 F. 706 (Second Circuit, 1924)
Armour & Co. v. Louisville Provision Co.
283 F. 42 (Sixth Circuit, 1922)
Agenjo v. Agenjo
276 F. 105 (First Circuit, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
275 F. 92, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armour-co-v-louisville-provision-co-kywd-1921.