Home/Supreme Court of Pennsylvania/Peters Pack. Co., Inc. v. Oswald Hess Co.

Peters Pack. Co., Inc. v. Oswald Hess Co.

5 A.2d 361, 334 Pa. 272, 41 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 415, 1939 Pa. LEXIS 626
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 21, 1939
DocketAppeal, 98
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 5 A.2d 361 (Peters Pack. Co., Inc. v. Oswald Hess Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Peters Pack. Co., Inc. v. Oswald Hess Co., 5 A.2d 361, 334 Pa. 272, 41 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 415, 1939 Pa. LEXIS 626 (Pa. 1939).

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Schaffer,

Plaintiff makes a sausage which it labels “NOLINK,” defendant one which it brands “LONG LINK.” Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the use by defendant of the designation “LONG LINK,” on the ground that the words violate its trade-mark and constitute unfair competition.

The chancellor dismissed the bill, mainly on the ground that the terms used were not deceptively similar. Prom the decree of dismissal plaintiff appeals.

Appellant contends that its name “NOLINK” is a distinctive trade name and that it has a method of using this name in stamping and advertising which defendant largely imitates. It is alleged that defendant is marking its commodity with the name “LONG LINK” in the same color of ink, same size of type, and in the same position on the sausages as plaintiff, all of which is emphasized in the latter’s advertising. Plaintiff’s sausage is stuffed into gut containers but has no links, defendant’s is similarly contained, but the links are long, twelve inches. When exposed for sale, plaintiff’s sausage is curled in rings in the cartons, defendant’s lies straight.

An inspection of the exhibits attached to the record does not give us the impression, that an ordinarily observant person would be misled as to which sausage he was buying by the legend on the cartons, or the branding of the sausage itself. On the one carton appears “PETERS NOLINK PURE PORK SAUSAGE” and “PETERS PACKING CO’S NOLINK PORK SAUSAGE”;

*274

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

Related

Goebel Brewing Co. v. Esslingers, Inc.
95 A.2d 523 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1953)
Consolidated Home Specialties Co. v. Plotkin
55 A.2d 404 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1947)
Brody v. Cohen
60 Pa. D. & C. 27 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A.2d 361, 334 Pa. 272, 41 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 415, 1939 Pa. LEXIS 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-pack-co-inc-v-oswald-hess-co-pa-1939.