Berberian v. Ferm

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Berberian v. Ferm

70 A.2d 394, 166 Pa. Super. 108, 84 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 363, 1950 Pa. Super. LEXIS 300

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 3, 1949

DocketAppeal, 101

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.2d 394 (Berberian v. Ferm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berberian v. Ferm, 70 A.2d 394, 166 Pa. Super. 108, 84 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 363, 1950 Pa. Super. LEXIS 300 (Pa. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Dithrich, J;,

In an opinion dismissing plaintiff’s exceptions to the Chancellor’s adjudication and decree nisi, the learned court en banc said: “The plaintiff, by his bill, seeks to restrain the defendants from the use of the name ‘Delco Valet Service’, because for ten years the plaintiff has been using the name ‘Delco Cleaners and Dyers’ and *109 thereby contends that he is entitled to protection in the use of such a name.

“The Chancellor refused to restrain the use of the name ‘Delco Valet Service’ by the defendants, on the ground that ‘Delco’, in a colloquial sense, is a descriptive or geographical term [meaning Delaware County] and cannot be exclusively appropriated by anyone, unless such name has taken on a ‘secondary meaning’. The Chancellor’s refusal to grant relief is based upon the finding that the plaintiff had not established a ‘secondary meaning.’ ” In his brief “appellant agrees that this issue [as stated in the foregoing sentence] controls his appeal, . . .”

Decree affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Dithrich, J;,

In an opinion dismissing plaintiff’s exceptions to the Chancellor’s adjudication and decree nisi, the learned court en banc said: “The plaintiff, by his bill, seeks to restrain the defendants from the use of the name ‘Delco Valet Service’, because for ten years the plaintiff has been using the name ‘Delco Cleaners and Dyers’ and *109 thereby contends that he is entitled to protection in the use of such a name.

“The Chancellor refused to restrain the use of the name ‘Delco Valet Service’ by the defendants, on the ground that ‘Delco’, in a colloquial sense, is a descriptive or geographical term [meaning Delaware County] and cannot be exclusively appropriated by anyone, unless such name has taken on a ‘secondary meaning’. The Chancellor’s refusal to grant relief is based upon the finding that the plaintiff had not established a ‘secondary meaning.’ ” In his brief “appellant agrees that this issue [as stated in the foregoing sentence] controls his appeal, . . .”

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.2d 394, 166 Pa. Super. 108, 84 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 363, 1950 Pa. Super. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berberian-v-ferm-pasuperct-1949.