Rubel Baking Co. v. L. Weinberg Baking Co.
This text of 18 N.E.2d 418 (Rubel Baking Co. v. L. Weinberg Baking 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.
Opinion
OPINION
Appeal on Law and Fact
Tlie Rubel Baking Company, appellant here, brought an action in the common pleas court against the Weinberg Baking Company, appellee, charging an infringement by defendant of plaintiff’s trade rights in the use of an annular band containing certain colors placed upon its product for sale to the public.
The defendant filed an answer denying the infringement, ana in a cross-petition, charges an infringement upon the part of plaintiff on its trade rights to a certain annular band placed upon its product, and under which it claims prior rights.
Relief was denied by the trial court and the petition and cross-petition were dismissed. The cross-petitioner did not • appeal.
Both companies are engaged in the manufacture and sale of bread of different kinds under different brands.
The plaintiff copyrighted the label under consideration which recites, title: “Rubel’s Heidelberg Rye Bread”, for Rye Bread, and the labels so read. The colors in the label are predominantly orange and black. The plaintiff has used this label since 1933, when it procured the copyright.
Prior to 1933, defendant used an annular label on its rye bread, with orange and black predominating, but narrower m width, with the printed words “Bohemian Whole Rye Bread.”
The label in question is only used by plaintiff on its Rye bread, and the label used by the defendant, which is complained of is used only on “Weinberg’s Poppy Seed Vienna” brand of white bread. True, the annular bands are similar both in size and color, except that the so-called orange shade in the Rubel Rye is darker more nearly approaching a reddish shade. The chief dissimilarity is, one is on rye bread and the other on white bread, and the printing is prominent and easily read.
In reason it may be stated that the Rubel label on its rye bread more nearly m-' fringes on the Weinberg label on its rye bread, and which it adopted and used prior to Rubel’s use, then does the use by Weinberg on its white bread of Rubel’s Rye Bread label.
There is no showing that the public has been deceived, and we see no reason why it should be.
Our conclusion is that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for, and its petition is dismissed at its costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
18 N.E.2d 418, 59 Ohio App. 407, 27 Ohio Law. Abs. 129, 13 Ohio Op. 176, 1938 Ohio App. LEXIS 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubel-baking-co-v-l-weinberg-baking-co-ohioctapp-1938.