Knight v. Milner

N.D. Ohio

Knight v. Milner

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 242

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio

DecidedSeptember 29, 1922

DocketNo. 333

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 242 (Knight v. Milner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Knight v. Milner, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 242 (N.D. Ohio 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTENHAVER, D. J.:

Epitomized Opinion

The owner of the trademark “Fruit of the Loom” had been licensing manufacturers of shirts using his goods in-their makes for 30 years, to use his mark, and they became widely known, as “Fruit of the Loom shirts.” Defendant had shirts made from the goods, with “Fruit of the Loom” stamped on the neck band, and advertise them as “Genuine Fruit of the Loom shirts.” Held:

It is unlawful to so closely imitate a trademark as to confuse the public, so that the imitator benefits by the reputation and good will esablished by the owner of the trade mark, and such a use will be enjoined.

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

WESTENHAVER, D. J.:

Epitomized Opinion

The owner of the trademark “Fruit of the Loom” had been licensing manufacturers of shirts using his goods in-their makes for 30 years, to use his mark, and they became widely known, as “Fruit of the Loom shirts.” Defendant had shirts made from the goods, with “Fruit of the Loom” stamped on the neck band, and advertise them as “Genuine Fruit of the Loom shirts.” Held:

It is unlawful to so closely imitate a trademark as to confuse the public, so that the imitator benefits by the reputation and good will esablished by the owner of the trade mark, and such a use will be enjoined.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-v-milner-ohnd-1922.