Home/Third Circuit/Pflugh v. Eagle White Lead Co.

Pflugh v. Eagle White Lead Co.

185 F. 769, 107 C.C.A. 659, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4042
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedFebruary 8, 1911
DocketNo. 48
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 185 F. 769 (Pflugh v. Eagle White Lead Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pflugh v. Eagle White Lead Co., 185 F. 769, 107 C.C.A. 659, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4042 (3d Cir. 1911).

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the court below, the Eagle White Lead Company charged Pflugh & Co. with violations of its two trade-marks. The court, in an opinion reported at 180 Fed. 579, sustained the two bills and ordered injunctions, but refused accountings; the two cases being treated in that court and this by stipulation as a single bill. From a decree granting injunctions, Pflugh & Co. took this appeal. After argument and due consideration, we are of opinion these injunctions cannot be sustained. The first trade-mark in question is No. 60,062, for pure white lead, registered January 29, 1907, for a pictorial eagle shown in a drawing as follows:

In his statement the grantee averred:

“The trade-mark is displayed on the packages containing the goods by placing thereon a printed label on which the same is shown, or by printing, branding, or otherwise placing the trade-mark on the heads or sides of barrels or kegs containing the goods, or by displaying it in any manner desired.”

The second trade-mark is No. 60,993, also for pure white lead, registered February 26, 1907, for the printed word shown in type as follows:

EAGLE

In his statement the grantee used the same statement quoted above.

The word and the pictorial eagle were used in complainant’s label, and the latter and respondent’s alleged infringing label are attached.

The above, as used, appears in gold on blue background.

[771]*771

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

Related

Tustin Community Hospital, Inc. v. Santa Ana Community Hospital Ass'n
89 Cal. App. 3d 889 (California Court of Appeal, 1979)
The Seven-Up Company v. O-So Grape Co.
177 F. Supp. 91 (S.D. Illinois, 1959)
Ambrosia Chocolate Co. v. Ambrosia Cake Bakery, Inc.
165 F.2d 693 (Fourth Circuit, 1947)
Bisceglia Bros. Corporation v. Fruit Industries
20 F. Supp. 564 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1937)
McKesson & Robbins, Inc. v. Charles H. Phillips Chemical Co.
53 F.2d 342 (Second Circuit, 1931)
Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Elliott
7 F.2d 962 (Third Circuit, 1925)
A B C Stores, Inc. v. T. S. Richey & Co.
266 S.W. 551 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Searchlight Horn Co. v. Victor Talking Mach. Co.
261 F. 395 (D. New Jersey, 1919)
Old Lexington Club Distillery Co. v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.
234 F. 464 (D. New Jersey, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
185 F. 769, 107 C.C.A. 659, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pflugh-v-eagle-white-lead-co-ca3-1911.