Griggs-Cooper Co. v. U. S. Print. & Lith. Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Griggs-Cooper Co. v. U. S. Print. & Lith. Co.

161 N.E. 789, 28 Ohio App. 1, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 548, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 449

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 1, 1926

Docket2913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 N.E. 789 (Griggs-Cooper Co. v. U. S. Print. & Lith. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Griggs-Cooper Co. v. U. S. Print. & Lith. Co., 161 N.E. 789, 28 Ohio App. 1, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 548, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 449 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

HAMILTON, J.

The Hamilton Common Pleas granted a decree in favor of the Griggs-Cooper and Company; enjoining the U. S. Printing and Lithographing Co. from publishing or selling labels for grocery commodities upon which labels the word “Home” appears.

The Griggs-Cooper Co. is engaged in the manufacture of groceries and sells same throughout the United States. It uses and owns the trade mark “Home Brand” for various descriptions of its goods. It was claimed that the labels printed by the Lithographing Co. which contained the word “Home” were sufficiently similar to its brand as to result in confusion and mistake; and constitutes an infringement upon the right in said trade mark. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held:

1. At first glance, this court would be constrained to hold that the word “Home” is a generic term and, as such, could not be appropriated as a trade mark because of a too comprehensive meaning to become the monopoly of an individual application of merchandise.

2. Federal Courts have uniformly held the word “Home” not to be generic in it nature and have upheld trade marks, the essential word of which was “Home”.

3. The Lithographing Co. contends that if the plaintiff be entitled to an injunction, it should be limited to those states in which it has established the right by trade; and should not extend to all states of the United States.

4. It has always been recognized as a general rule, that a trade mark, unlike a patent, knows no territorial limitation. The right to a trade mark cannot be limited to any place, city, or state and therefore, must be deemed to extend everywhere.

5. By the weight of authority, the equities are in favor of the plaintiff and a perpetual injunction will be granted as prayed for.. Motioin to suspend injunction granted by the Common Pleas is overruled.

Decree accordingly.

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