Home/Ninth Circuit/The Creamette Company, a Minnesota Corporation v. Joseph Merlino, a Sole Trader Doing Business as Major Italian Foods Company

The Creamette Company, a Minnesota Corporation v. Joseph Merlino, a Sole Trader Doing Business as Major Italian Foods Company

299 F.2d 55, 132 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 381, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6072
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 29, 1962
Docket17262_1
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 299 F.2d 55 (The Creamette Company, a Minnesota Corporation v. Joseph Merlino, a Sole Trader Doing Business as Major Italian Foods Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The Creamette Company, a Minnesota Corporation v. Joseph Merlino, a Sole Trader Doing Business as Major Italian Foods Company, 299 F.2d 55, 132 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 381, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6072 (9th Cir. 1962).

Opinion

DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge.

The Creamette Company, plaintiff below and appellant here, sought to obtain an injunction and damages for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Relief was denied, and Creamette appeals. The court below had jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1114(1), 1116, 1117, 1121 (the Lanham Trade-Mark Act) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338, as well as under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and Rule 54 (b) F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A. 1

From the complaint, the suit appears to be based primarily upon a charge that defendant appellee Merlino was infringing Creamette’s registered trade-mark “Creamettes”, used on macaroni products, by using the unregistered mark “Majorette” on similar products. It is also charged that the use of “Majorette” infringes other marks of Creamette, and that its use in combination with certain words and designs also constitutes unfair competition. However, the court having found against Creamette on all issues, the principal claim here is, to quote from Creamette’s brief, that it owns a “ ‘family’ of trade-marks as applied to macaroni products, and * * * has an indisputable right to the exclusive use of the suffix [“ette” and “ettes” and “et”] on and in connection with macaroni products.”

Creamette’s business is principally in Minnesota (where it has its headquarters), Michigan, Wisconsin, the Dakotas and eastern Montana, (the “home” territory) with a smaller volume in several other states. Its business in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California and Alaska is substantially smaller. In Washington, in 1959, its business was $20,000, having declined from a high point of $34,000 in 1954.

Merlino manufactures and sells macaroni products in Washington and adjoining states — Oregon, Alaska, California and, to a small extent, Idaho and Montana —under the unregistered name “Majorette”. Its sales in this area are much larger than Creamette’s.

*57

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

Related

Am General Corporation and General Motors Corporation v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation
311 F.3d 796 (Seventh Circuit, 2002)
AM General Corp v. DaimlerChrysler Corp
Seventh Circuit, 2002
Chauvin International Ltd. v. Goldwitz
832 F. Supp. 35 (D. Connecticut, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
299 F.2d 55, 132 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 381, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-creamette-company-a-minnesota-corporation-v-joseph-merlino-a-sole-ca9-1962.