Société Anonyme de la Distillerie de la Liqueur Benedictine de L'abbaye de Fecamp v. Puziello

250 F. 928, 1918 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1113
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedMay 16, 1918
StatusPublished

This text of 250 F. 928 (Société Anonyme de la Distillerie de la Liqueur Benedictine de L'abbaye de Fecamp v. Puziello) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Société Anonyme de la Distillerie de la Liqueur Benedictine de L'abbaye de Fecamp v. Puziello, 250 F. 928, 1918 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1113 (E.D.N.Y. 1918).

Opinion

CHATFIELD, District Judge.

The charge of infringement of trade-mark No. 95,488 has not been made out, and the plaintiff does not sufficiently prove validity of trade-mark No. 60,241, which states that the design of the trade-mark is applied by putting the goods in a bottle of that design.

The statute of February 20, 1905, allowing the registration of a trade-mark in use for more than 10 years, does not alter the fundamental proposition, that a trade-mark is a design or mark rather than a container or package. Thaddeus Davids Co. v. Davids et al., 178 Fed. 801, 102 C. C. A. 249; Hughes v. Alfred H. Smith Co., 209 Fed. 37, 126 C. C. A. 179. Resemblance in package or wrapping would not constitute the infringement of a trade-mark. Philadelphia Novelty Mfg. Co. v. Rouss (C. C.) 40 Fed. 585.

Under the former trade-mark law, the shape and appearance of a package or wrapping could not be made the subject of a trade-mark, as distinguished from a design which of itself made up the mark. Fleischmann v. Starkey (C. C.) 25 Fed. 127; Adams v. Heisel (C. C.) 31 Fed. 279; Enoch Morgan’s Sons Co. v. Troxell, 89 N. Y. 292, 42 Am. Rep. 294; Pillsbury v. Pillsbury-Washburn Flour Mills Co., 64 Fed. 841, 12 C. C. A. 432; National Biscuit Co. v. Baker (C. C.) 95 Fed. 135; United States Tobacco Co. v. McGreenery (C. C.) 144 Fed. 531; Coca-Cola Co. v. Glee-No1 Bottling Co., 221 Fed. 61, 137 C. C. A. 83.

The plaintiff may have a decree on the ground of unfair competition.

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

Related

Enoch Morgan's Sons Co. v. . Troxell
89 N.Y. 292 (New York Court of Appeals, 1882)
Adams v. Heisel
31 F. 279 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1887)
Fleischmann v. Starkey
25 F. 127 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island, 1885)
United States Tobacco Co. v. McGreenery
144 F. 531 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1906)
Thaddeus Davids Co. v. Davids
178 F. 801 (Second Circuit, 1910)
Hughes v. Alfred H. Smith Co.
209 F. 37 (Second Circuit, 1913)
Coca-Cola Co. v. Glee-Nol Bottling Co.
221 F. 61 (Fifth Circuit, 1915)
Philadelphia Novelty Manuf'g Co. v. Rouss
40 F. 585 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1889)
Pillsbury v. Pillsbury Washburn Flour Mills Co.
64 F. 841 (Seventh Circuit, 1894)
National Biscuit Co. v. Baker
95 F. 135 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
250 F. 928, 1918 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/societe-anonyme-de-la-distillerie-de-la-liqueur-benedictine-de-labbaye-de-nyed-1918.